COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2022 Rule of Law Report Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Romania Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions 2022 Rule of Law Report The rule of law situation in the European Union
Date: 2022-07-13
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: Romania, coronavirus disease, corruption, democracy, epidemic, independence of the judiciary, infringement of EU law, pluralism in the media, political rights, rule of law

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Luxembourg, 13.7.2022  SWD(2022) 523 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2022 Rule of Law Report        Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Romania Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions 2022 Rule of Law Report          The rule of law situation in the European Union {COM(2022) 500 final} - {SWD(2022) 501 final} - {SWD(2022) 502 final} - {SWD(2022) 503 final} - {SWD(2022) 504 final} - {SWD(2022) 505 final} - {SWD(2022) 506 final} - {SWD(2022) 507 final} - {SWD(2022) 508 final} - {SWD(2022) 509 final} - {SWD(2022) 510 final} - {SWD(2022) 511 final} - {SWD(2022) 512 final} - {SWD(2022) 513 final} - {SWD(2022) 514 final} - {SWD(2022) 515 final} - {SWD(2022) 516 final} - {SWD(2022) 517 final} - {SWD(2022) 518 final} - {SWD(2022) 519 final} - {SWD(2022) 520 final} - {SWD(2022) 521 final} - {SWD(2022) 522 final} - {SWD(2022) 524 final} - {SWD(2022) 525 final} - {SWD(2022) 526 final} - {SWD(2022) 527 final}  
 
 
ABSTRACT 

Since  accession  to  the  EU  in  2007,  Romanian  reforms  in  the  areas  of  justice  and  anti-
corruption have been followed by the Commission through the Cooperation and Verification 
Mechanism  (CVM),  as  an  important  framework  for  progress  in  these  areas.  The  CVM 
continues in parallel to the rule of law mechanism, of which Romania is an integral part – as 
any other Member State – until all benchmarks are satisfactorily met. 

The  justice  system  is  undergoing  structural  reforms  aimed  at  addressing  a  number  of  long-
standing issues. The Government adopted a new judicial strategy and related action plan for 
2022-2025 and is implementing projects to improve the digitalisation of the justice system, as 
planned in Romania’s Recovery and Resilience Plan. While the Section for the Investigation 
of Offences in the Judiciary (SIIJ) was dismantled, some concerns related to the new system 
for the investigation and prosecution of criminal offences in the judiciary remain. The rules 
on  disciplinary  sanctions  as  well  as  the  extensive  powers  and  lack  of  accountability  of  the 
Chief  Judicial  Inspector  continue  generating  concerns  for  judicial  independence,  which  are 
expected to be addressed by the new draft justice laws under preparation. There has been no 
significant  improvement  as  regards  the  shortage  of  magistrates.  The  efficiency  in  civil  and 
commercial cases remains stable, while decreasing considerably for administrative courts. 

The  Anti-Corruption  Strategy  for  2021-2025  was  adopted  and  its  effective  implementation 
relies  on  political  support  to  implement  important  legislative  reforms.  The  effectiveness  of 
the investigation and sanctioning of corruption further improved, including by advancing on 
cases that had been pending for years. The National Anti-Corruption Directorate continued to 
improve  its  track  record  of  results,  but  operational  challenges,  including  the  difficulty  to 
recruit prosecutors, remain to be solved. As concerns the new system replacing the SIIJ, its 
impact on investigating and prosecuting corruption offences remains to be seen. Steps have 
been taken to finalise the revised Criminal Codes. The legal framework on integrity remains 
fragmented,  and  there  are  no  uniform  provisions  on  revolving  doors  for  public  servants  or 
lobbying  rules  for  Members  of  Parliament.  The  transparency  of  political  party  financing  is 
limited.  The  appointment  of  the  President  of  the  National  Integrity  Agency  and  the  new 
mandatory electronic asset declaration platform allowed the Agency to work more efficiently. 

Romania  has  not  yet  transposed  the  Audiovisual  Media  Services  Directive,  thus  delaying 
necessary  changes  to  improve  the  functioning  and  effectiveness  of  the  media  regulator. 
Reforms to the law on the public broadcasting and radio companies are under way aiming at a 
less politicised appointment process and more professionalised management. Transparency of 
media  ownership  could  be  strengthened.  There  is  not  enough  transparency  on  the 
broadcasting of content paid for by political parties outside electoral campaigns, and access to 
information  by  journalists  remains  deficient.  Instances  of  threats,  harassment  and  physical 
violence against journalists are more concerning compared to last year. 

Frequent changes of legislation, regular use of emergency ordinances and the limited practice 
of  public  consultations  continue  to  raise  concerns.  There  are  efforts  to  improve  the  use  of 
impact assessments. The Government made a clear commitment to the principle of primacy 
of EU law, but concerns remain regarding the challenge to this principle by the Constitutional 
Court.  The  state  of  alert  related  to  the  COVID-19  pandemic  was  lifted  and  the  emergency 
measures  were  scrutinised.  The  Institute  for  Human  Rights  is  seeking  accreditation  as 
National  Human  Rights  Institution.  While  the  civil  society  is  facing  challenges  stemming 
from  the  impact  of  COVID-19-related  restrictions  and  limited  access  to  funding,  there  are 
plans to simplify registration procedures for non-governmental organisations. 

1 

 
 
RECOMMENDATIONS 

In addition to recalling the commitments made under the National Recovery and Resilience 
Plan relating to  certain  aspects of the justice system, the anti-corruption framework and the 
legislative  process  and  the  recommendations  under  the  Cooperation  and  Verification 
Mechanism, it is recommended to Romania to:  

  Ensure  that  the  revision  of  the  Justice  Laws  reinforces  safeguards  for  judicial 
independence,  including  to  reform  the  disciplinary  regime  for  magistrates,  and  take 
measures  to  address  remaining  concerns  about  the  investigation  and  prosecution  of 
criminal  offences  in  the  judiciary,  taking  into  account  European  standards  and  relevant 
Venice Commission opinions. 
Introduce rules on lobbying for Members of Parliament.  

 
  Address the operational challenges of the National Anti-Corruption Directorate, including 
as regards recruitment of prosecutors, and closely monitor the impact of the new system 
on investigating and prosecuting corruption offences in the judiciary. 

  Strengthen  the  rules  and  mechanisms  to  enhance  the  independent  governance  and 
editorial  independence  of  public  service  media  taking  into  account  the  European 
standards on public service media. 

  Ensure effective public consultation before the adoption of draft legislation. 
  Continue efforts to establish a National Human Rights Institution taking into account the 

UN Paris Principles.  

2 

 
The Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM) was established at the accession to the 
European Union in 2007 as a transitional measure to facilitate Romania’s continued efforts to 
reform its judiciary and step up the fight against corruption1. In line with the decision setting 
up the mechanism and as underlined by the Council, the CVM ends when all the benchmarks 
applying to  Romania are satisfactorily met.  In its reports  of January 2017, the Commission 
adopted a comprehensive assessment of Romania’s progress over the 10 years of the CVM. It 
also  set  out  a  path  towards  the  conclusion  of  the  Mechanism  based  on  12  final  key 
recommendations that, if complied with, would be sufficient to meet the goals of the CVM, if 
developments were not such as to reverse the course of progress. The November 2018 report 
concluded  that  developments  had  reversed  or  called  into  question  the  irreversibility  of 
progress,  and  that  eight  additional  recommendations  had  to  be  made.  Since  then,  the 
Commission has continued to track progress, including through the 2021 CVM report, which 
noted that there is progress across all the remaining CVM recommendations and many are on 
the path to being fulfilled if progress remains steady2. The analysis set out in this report will 
also inform the work to track the achievement of the benchmarks and the conclusion of the 
CVM. 

I. 

JUSTICE SYSTEM  

The Romanian justice system is structured in four instances, both civil and military: the first 
instance  county  courts,  the  ordinary  and  specialised  tribunals,  the  courts of  appeal3  and  the 
High  Court  of  Cassation  and  Justice.  The  High  Court  of  Cassation  and  Justice  judges  first 
instance and appeal criminal cases for certain categories of persons4, as well as appeal cases 
for certain civil  and  administrative cases. A  fundamental  role of this Court is  to  ensure the 
uniform interpretation and application of the law by the other courts. The Superior Council of 
Magistracy, tasked with guaranteeing judicial independence, is divided into two sections, the 
section for judges and the section for prosecutors. Each section has exclusive competence for 
the  recruitment  and  management  of  the  career  of  judges  and  prosecutors  respectively,  and 
acts as a disciplinary court. The prosecution service is headed by the Prosecutor General of 
the  Public  Prosecutor’s  Office  attached  to  the  High  Court  of  Cassation  and  Justice.  The 
Public  Prosecutor’s  Office  includes  specialised  structures  with  special  jurisdiction  and 
organisation,  the  National  Anti-Corruption  Directorate  (DNA)  and  the  Directorate  for 
Investigation  and  Combating  Organised  Crime  and  Terrorism  (DIICOT),  led  by  chief 
prosecutors5.  There  are  also  military  prosecutorial  offices.  The  Prosecutor  General  and  the 
Chief  Prosecutors  of  the  specialised  structures,  DNA  and  DIICOT,  are  appointed  by  the 
President  of  the  Republic,  upon  a  proposal  of  the  Minister  of  Justice  and  after  having 
received a non-binding opinion of the Superior Council of Magistracy. Romania participates 

1   Following  the  conclusions  of  the  Council  of  Ministers,  17  October  2006  (13339/06),  the  Mechanism  had 

been established by a Commission Decision of 13 December 2006 (C(2006)928). 

2   Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on Progress in Romania under the 

Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (COM(2021) 370 final), p.24. 

3   Courts of appeal judge at both first instance (more complex cases) and second instance, in appeals against 

decisions handed down by the lower courts. 

4   The  Criminal  Section  of  the  High  Court  of  Cassation  and  Justice  hears,  as  a  court  of  first  instance,  cases 
involving offences committed by senators, deputies, and Romanian members of the European Parliament, by 
members of the Government, by judges of the Constitutional Court, by members of the Superior Council of 
Magistracy,  by  judges  of  the  High  Court  of  Cassation  and  Justice,  and  by  prosecutors  of  the  Prosecutor's 
Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice. 

5   Prosecutors’ offices attached to the courts of appeal are headed by general prosecutors, and the ones attached 

to the tribunals and county courts are led by first prosecutors. 

3 

 
                                                 
in  the  European  Public  Prosecutor’s  Office  (EPPO).  The  Romanian  National  Union  of  Bar 
Associations is a legal entity of public interest, comprising all 41 bars in Romania. 

Independence  

The level of perceived judicial independence in Romania continues to be average among 
both the general public and companies. Overall, 48% of the general population and 49% of 
companies perceive the level of independence of courts and judges to be ‘fairly or very good’ 
in  20226.  According  to  data  in  the  2022  EU  Justice  Scoreboard,  no  clear  trend  can  be 
identified in the evolution of the perceived level of independence since 2016. The perceived 
judicial  independence  among  the  general  public  has  decreased  in  comparison  with  2021 
(51%) and 2016 (51%). The perceived judicial independence among companies has increased 
in comparison with 2021 (45%), but it is lower than in 2016 (63%). 

A  new  version  of  the  draft  justice  laws  is  under  preparation.  In  its  Recovery  and 
Resilience Plan (RRP), Romania committed to amend the justice laws7 by 30 June 2023, as 
part of the reform aimed at ensuring the independence of the judiciary, enhancing its quality 
and efficiency8. The draft laws were initially put for public consultation in 2020 and again in 
20219, and some of the proposals received in this context were included in the new draft laws. 
The Ministry of Justice published the amended drafts on its website on 22 June 2022. These 
are intended to address long-standing concerns for the independence, quality and efficiency 
of  the  justice  system,  in  particular  by  amending  the  provisions  related  to  the  civil  and 
disciplinary liability of magistrates, competitions for admission to the judiciary, and rules on 
the  status,  appointment  and  removal  of  specialised  and  high-ranking  prosecutors.  Having 
regard that this is the first in-depth reform of the laws governing the judiciary since 2004, a 
comprehensive and transparent revision process is expected to take place. The new draft laws 
are still to be tabled in Parliament. 

The Section for the Investigation of Offences in the Judiciary (SIIJ) was dismantled, but 
some  concerns  related  to  the  investigation  and  prosecution  of  criminal  offences  in  the 
judiciary  remain.  On  11  March  202210,  the  SIIJ11  was  dismantled  and  the  competence  to 
investigate  offences  committed  by  magistrates  was  transferred  to  ‘designated  prosecutors’ 

6   Figures 50 and 52, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. The level of perceived judicial independence is categorised 
as  follows:  very  low  (below  30%  of  respondents  perceive  judicial  independence  as  fairly  good  and  very 
good); low (between 30-39%), average (between 40-59%), high (between 60-75%), very high (above 75%). 
7   Law no. 303/2004 on the status of judges and prosecutors, Law no. 304/2004 on judicial organization, and 
Law no. 317/2004 on the Superior Council of Magistracy. These laws, which define the status of magistrates 
and  organise  the  judicial  system  as  well  as  the  Superior  Council  of  Magistracy,  are  central  for  the 
independence  of  magistrates  and  the  good  functioning  of  the  judiciary.  See  2020  Rule  of  Law  Report, 
Country  Chapter  on  the  rule  of  law  situation  in  Romania,  p.  3,  and  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report,  Country 
Chapter on the rule of law situation in Romania, pp. 3-4. 

8   On proposal from the Commission, the Council adopted its Implementing Decision 12319/21, of 26 October 
2021,  on  the  approval  of  the  assessment  of  the  recovery  and  resilience  plan  for  Romania,  under  which 
milestone 423, to be achieved by 30 June 2023, refers to the ‘Entry into force of the ‘Justice laws’ (laws on 
the status of magistrates, judicial organisation, Superior Council of Magistracy).  

9   2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Romania, p. 4. 
10   Law  No  49  of  11  March  2022  on  the  abolition  of  the  Section  for  the  Investigation  of  Offences  in  the 
Judiciary, as well as for the amendment of Law no. 135/2010 on the Code of Criminal Procedure, published 
in the Official Gazette No 244 of 11 March 2022. 

11   See 2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Romania, pp. 4-5. 

4 

 
                                                 
within the Prosecutor’s Offices attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice (HCCJ)12 
and the Courts of Appeal13. It thus maintains the competence ratione personae in place under 
the previous system14. While the new system  is  an improvement in  terms  of the number of 
prosecutors  allocated  to  the  new  structure  and  its  territorial  distribution15,  concerns  remain 
that it could undermine judicial independence16 and proper safeguards need to be put in place, 
in  light  of  the  case  law  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  the  European  Union  (CJEU)17.  Such  a 
system  must  be  justified  by  objective  and  verifiable  requirements  relating  to  the  sound 
administration  of  justice18.  Additionally,  the  appointment  process  for  the  ‘designated 
prosecutors’ does not provide for a competitive procedure based on meritocratic criteria and 
does not involve the section for prosecutors of the Superior Council of Magistracy (SCM)19. 
This  is  contrary  to  the  recommendations  of  the  Venice  Commission20.  Furthermore,  as 
concerns  ‘vexatious  complaints’,  which  could  be  used  as  a  means  of  pressure  against 
magistrates,  the  new  system  does  not  contain  any  specific  safeguards  to  ensure  that 
magistrates  are  not  subject  to  undue  prosecution.  Finally,  the  new  structure  would  need  to 

12   For  offences  committed  by  members  of  the  SCM,  judges  and  prosecutors  attached  to  the  High  Court  of 
Cassation, judges and prosecutors attached to the courts of appeal and the military court of appeal, as well as 
the judges of the Constitutional Court.  

13   For offences committed by judges and prosecutors attached to courts of first instance, tribunals and military 

tribunals. 

14   See  the  Venice  Commission  in  its  Opinion  (CDL-AD(2022)003),  ‘[a]ny  special  treatment  of  magistrates 
should be strictly limited to functional immunity for actions carried out in good faith in pursuance of their 
duties or in the exercise of their functions and should not extend to the commission of crimes’. 

15   According to Art. 10 of the Law dismantling the SIIJ, to operate the new structure, the Prosecutor General 
may designate up to 14 prosecutors within the  Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation 
and Justice and up to three in each Prosecutor’s Offices attached to the  Courts of Appeal. The prosecutors 
are designated for a period of four years upon recommendation of the plenum of the SCM. They return to 
their initial position at the end of that term or upon decision of the Prosecutor General to end the designation. 
16   Statement  by  the  Romanian  Judges  Forum  Association,  the  Movement  for  the  Defence  of  the  Statute  of 

Prosecutors Association and the ‘Initiative for Justice’ Association, of 24 January 2022. 

17   The new structure should be ‘accompanied by specific guarantees such as, first, to prevent any risk of that 
section  being  used  as  an  instrument  of  political  control  over  the  activity  of  those  judges  and  prosecutors 
likely  to  undermine  their  independence  and,  secondly,  to  ensure  that  that  exclusive  competence  may  be 
exercised in respect of those judges and prosecutors in full compliance with the requirements arising from 
Articles 47  and  48  of  the  Charter’(Judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  18  May  2021,  Asociaţia  ‘Forumul 
Judecătorilor Din România’ and Others, in joined cases C-83/19, C-127/19, C-195/19, C-294/19, C-355/19 
and C-379/19, ECLI:EU:C:2021:393, para. 223). 

18   Judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  18  May  2021,  Asociaţia  ‘Forumul  Judecătorilor  Din  România’  and 
joined  cases  C-83/19,  C-127/19,  C-195/19,  C-294/19,  C-355/19  and  C-379/19, 

in 

Others, 
ECLI:EU:C:2021:393, para. 223. 

19   On 3 May 2022, the plenary of the SCM held a meeting to appoint a maximum of 59 designated prosecutors. 
Out  of  56  candidates,  35  were  appointed  (including  all  the  prosecutors  formerly  pertaining  to  the  SIIJ). 
Although for the remaining 21 candidates the decision was postponed without further motivation, on 23 May 
2022,  the  SCM  announced  the  start  of  a  new  selection  procedure,  for  a  maximum  of  eight  prosecutors, 
without  motivating  the  decision  to  reduce  the  number  of  positions  initially  announced  and  their  allocation 
exclusively  to  the  Prosecutor's  Office  attached  to  the  High  Court  of  Cassation  and  Justice  (Information 
received from members of the SCM in the context of the country visit to Romania).  

20   The designation proposal is made to the Prosecutor by the plenary instead of the section for prosecutors of 
the SCM, which is the authority with competence for making recommendations and decisions on the career 
of prosecutors. As the Law does not provide for a competitive procedure based on meritocratic criteria, it is 
furthermore  unclear  how  the  SCM  plenary  is  to  evaluate  and  select  the  candidates  to  be  proposed  to  the 
Prosecutor General for designation. The Venice Commission recommends to ‘give the prosecutorial section 
of  the  SCM  a  stronger  involvement  in  the  initial  selection  of  prosecutors’  (Venice  Commission  Opinion 
(CDL-AD(2022)003), para. 28). 

5 

 
                                                 
deal swiftly with the significant backlog pending before the SIIJ before its dismantlement21, 
notably cases stemming  from  ‘vexatious complaints’, in  order to  lift the  pressure  generated 
by  protracted  procedures  on  the  magistrates  involved22.  As  regards  the  process,  under  the 
current Government, the Ministry of Justice published a new draft law23 on 21 January 2022 
and,  after  a  shortened  ten-day  public  consultation  and  a  positive  opinion  of  the  SCM,  the 
Parliament  adopted  the  law  on  28  February  202224.  The  Venice  Commission,  which  was 
consulted on the new draft law, expressed in its opinion its regret with its hasty adoption25, 
which gave little opportunity to relevant stakeholders to assess the provisions and  exchange 
constructively with the Romanian authorities on their content. 

The  legal  provisions  on  disciplinary  sanctions  and  their  implementation  continue  to 
raise concerns for the independence of the judiciary26. Between 2021 and March 2022, the 
High  Court  of  Cassation  and  Justice  solved,  in  last  instance,  22  cases  on  the  disciplinary 
liability of judges and prosecutors, upholding the disciplinary sanctions decided by the SCM 
in 10 of these cases27. In several cases, judges who had expressed critical opinions as regards 
the justice reforms of 2017-2019 were sanctioned, following disciplinary actions initiated by 
the  Judicial  Inspection.  In  one  case,  five  judges  received  various  disciplinary  sanctions  on 
referral by the Judicial Inspection, for the offence of ‘unjustified non-compliance with other 
administrative  obligations  provided  by  law  or  regulations’28.  In  a  second  case,  the  SCM 
imposed 
judge  for 
the  disciplinary  sanction  of  exclusion  from  magistracy  on  a 
‘manifestations  detrimental  to  the  honour  or  professional  probity  or  to  the  prestige  of  the 
justice  system’29,  for  posting  videos  related  to  his  private  life  on  social  media.  The  same 

21   In December 2021, there were more than 7 000 cases pending before the SIIJ. Information received from the 
Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice in the context of the country visit. 

22   See also Section 2 – Anti-corruption Framework.  
23   An initial draft law to dismantle the SIIJ, tabled in Parliament by the previous Government on 18 February 
2021  and  adopted  by  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  with  amendments  on  24  March  2021,  was  not  adopted  in 
Senate, despite of the favourable Venice Commission opinion on the principle of restoring the competence 
of DNA and DIICOT(Venice Commission opinion (CDL-AD(2021)019); see also 2021 Rule of Law Report, 
Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Romania, pp. 4-5. 

24   The  law  was  challenged  before  the  Constitutional  Court,  which  declared  it  constitutional  by  Decision  No. 

88, of 9 March 2022. 

25   Venice  Commission,  Opinion  on  the  draft  law  dismantling  the  section  for  investigating  criminal  offences 

committed within the judiciary (CDL-AD(2022)003), paras. 15 and 36. 

26   As regards the disciplinary offence of failure to comply with the decisions of the Constitutional Court  (Art. 

99 ş) of the Law on the status of judges and prosecutors), see Section 4.  

27   The High Court also lowered the sanction applied in three cases. Information received from the High Court 

of Cassation and Justice in the context of the country visit. 

28   The Decision of 14 December 2021 concerned five judges of the Constanța Court of Appeal, some of which 
had  taken  part  in  the  sentencing  of  high-level  corruption  offences  (Romanian  Judges  Forum  Association, 
Movement  for  the  Defence  of  the  Statute  of  Prosecutors  and  ‘Initiative  for  Justice’  Association,  joint 
statement of 24 January 2022). The concrete ground relied on was the contestation by the five magistrates of 
some decisions of the Management Board of this Court regarding the formation of the panels. The decision 
to sanction, adopted by a majority of votes, was accompanied with three dissenting opinions of members of 
the section for judges of the SCM calling to reject the disciplinary actions or to declare them null and void 
because  of  deficiency  in  the  procedure  followed  by  the  Judicial  Inspection,  as  well  as  on  the  basis  of  the 
judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  18  May  2021,  Asociaţia  ‘Forumul  Judecătorilor  din  România’  and 
Others, in joined cases C-83/19, C-127/19, C-195/19, C-291/19, C-355/19 and C-397/19, EU:C:2021:393. 
29   Under Art. 99 a) of Law no. 303/2004 on the status of judges and prosecutors, by Decision of 14 December 
2021.  Whereas  the  sanction  became  effective  from  the  moment  of  the  notification  of  the  disciplinary 
decision, the reasons were not communicated to the magistrate for several months within the legal deadline. 
Such a delay raises concerns as to the compliance with the right to an effective remedy, more particularly in 
view of Art. 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (judgment of the European Court of Human 
Rights  of  28  October  2020,  Camelia  Bogdan  v.  Romania,  36889/18,  on  the  right  to  an  effective  remedy 

6 

 
                                                 
 
judge  was  excluded  from  the  magistracy  a  second  time,  on  the  grounds  that  he  engaged  in 
political  activities30.  As  highlighted  by  the  CJEU,  in  order  to  preserve  the  independence  of 
the  courts,  it  is  necessary  to  prevent  the  disciplinary  regime  from  being  diverted  from  its 
legitimate  purposes  and  being  used  to  exert  political  control  over  judicial  decisions  or 
pressure on judges31. In terms of predictability of disciplinary case-law, the SCM took a step 
to  increase its  transparency by publishing, in  anonymised format,  the disciplinary decisions 
that have become final and breaches of the code of ethics on a portal accessible to magistrates 
only32. 

The extensive powers and lack of accountability of the Chief Judicial Inspector remain 
a  cause  for  concern,  which  the  new  justice  laws  are  expected  to  address.  The  Judicial 
Inspection  conducts  the  preliminary  investigation  in  disciplinary  proceedings  and  decides 
whether there are grounds to initiate a disciplinary investigation before the competent section 
of  the  SCM33.  As  referred  to  in  the  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report34,  following  the  ad  interim 
appointment of the Chief Judicial Inspector35, the CJEU laid out criteria to assess the legality 
of such ad interim appointment36. Lower courts implemented this judgment differently37. To 
remedy  this  diverging  case-law,  the  High  Court  of  Cassation  and  Justice  was  seized  and 
upheld the legality of the interim appointment38. The concentration of power in the hands of 

against disciplinary sanctions). This case also highlights the vulnerabilities in the legal framework, since the 
definition of the offence ‘manifestations detrimental to the honour or professional probity or to the prestige 
of the justice system’ can be interpreted broadly. 

30   By decision of 25 May 2022, the section for judges of the SCM decided to exclude the judge concerned  for 
the disciplinary offence provided by Art. 99 b) of Law no. 303/2004, which prohibits being part of political 
parties or organisations, on the grounds that he participated in the political activity of an NGO of which he 
was a member. 

31   Judgments of the Court of Justice of 15 July 2021, Commission v Poland (Disciplinary regime for judges), 
C-791/19, ECLI:EU:C:2021:596, para. 138, and of 21 December 2021, Euro Box Promotion e.a., in joined 
cases C-357/19, C-379/19, C-547/19, C-811/19 and C-840/19, ECLI:EU:C:2021:1034, para. 239. 

32   The  eMAP  portal  is  accessible  at  the  following  address:  https://emap.csm1909.ro/.  See  written  input  from 

Romania for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 9. 

33   As the Court of Justice held, the prospect of opening a disciplinary investigation is, as such, liable to exert 
pressure on those who have the task of adjudicating in a dispute, it is essential that the body competent to 
conduct  investigations  and  bring  disciplinary  proceedings  should  act  objectively  and  impartially  in  the 
performance of its duties and, to that end, be free from any external influence. See judgment of the Court of 
Justice  of  18  May  2021,  Asociaţia  ‘Forumul  Judecătorilor  din  România’  and  Others,  in  joined  cases 
C-83/19, C-127/19, C-195/19, C-291/19, C-355/19 and C-397/19, EU:C:2021:393, para. 199. 
34   2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Romania, pp. 6 and 7. 
35   By Emergency Ordinance No. 77/2018 of 5 September 2018, the Government had allowed for the ad interim 
extension of the  mandate  of the then incumbent  Chief Inspector from 1 September 2018 to 14 May 2019, 
whereas the competence to appoint interim substitutes is normally vested in the SCM.  

36   Judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  18  May  2021,  Asociaţia  ‘Forumul  Judecătorilor  Din  România’  and 
joined  cases  C-83/19,  C-127/19,  C-195/19,  C-294/19,  C-355/19  and  C-379/19, 

Others, 
ECLI:EU:C:2021:393, para. 207.  

in 

37   Adjudicating on applications  against disciplinary procedures or sanctions,  some  lower courts  validated the 
acts  performed  by  the  Judicial  Inspection,  while  others  annulled  them  on  the  grounds  that  they  had  been 
ordered  by  an  authority  appointed  illegally.  In  particular,  some  courts  considered  that,  since  Order  No. 
134/2018  of  the  Chief  Inspector  on  the  organisation  and  functioning  of  the  Judicial  Inspection  had  been 
signed during the ad interim mandate of the chief inspector, all acts on its basis were null and void. 

38   Decision of the Panel for the Resolution of Points of Law of the High Court of Cassation and Justice (HCCJ) 
of 14 February 2022  in Case  2.990/1/2021. In view of the  judgment of the  CJEU, the HCCJ held that  the 
provisions  of  Emergency  Ordinance  No.  77/2018  did  not  confer  on  the  Government  a  direct  power  to 
appoint  the  heads  of  the  Judicial  Inspection  and  did  not  give  rise  to  legitimate  doubts  that  the  Judicial 
Inspection  would  be  used  as  an  instrument  of  pressure  on  judicial  activity  or  of  political  control  of  that 

7 

 
                                                                                                                                                        
 
the  Chief  Inspector  and  his  deputy,  as  well  as  the  limits  to  the  oversight  by  the  SCM39, 
remain an issue for the independence of justice40. On 7 September 2021, a commission set up 
by  the  SCM  rejected  the  request  of  the  section  for  prosecutors  to  seize  the  plenary  of  the 
SCM  in  view  of  deciding  on  the  revocation  of  the  Chief  Inspector41.  It  is  reported  that 
magistrates  expressing public views on rule of law issues are often targeted by disciplinary 
investigations  opened  by  the  Judicial  Inspection42,  either  ex  officio  or  at  the  request  of  the 
SCM43. The Judicial Inspection may also carry out thematic controls in all prosecution offices 
and request extensive information to this end44. A request for a preliminary ruling is pending 
before the CJEU on the question whether the extensive powers vested in the Chief Inspector 
are  in  accordance  with  the  principle  of  judicial  independence45.  The  draft  justice  laws  are 
expected to amend the provisions of the law on the SCM, in particular by providing that the 
deputy  chief inspector is to  be appointed by the  plenary of the SCM, and no longer by the 
Chief Inspector.  

The new Strategy for the Development of the Judiciary 2022-2025 and its related Action 
Plan set clear objectives and a monitoring mechanism. At the initiative of the Ministry of 

activity.  Decisions  of  the  Panel  for  the  Resolution  of  Points  of  Law  are  binding  on  all  courts  from  their 
publication in the Official Gazette. 

39   2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Romania, pp. 6-7.  
40   The  latest  progress  report  for  Romania  under  the  CVM,  (COM(2021)  370  final),  notes  that  there  remain 
cases  where  disciplinary  investigations  and  heavy  sanctions  on  magistrates  critical  of  the  efficiency  and 
independence of the judiciary have raised concerns. More recently, the disciplinary proceedings initiated by 
the Judiciary Inspection against a judge of the  Pitești Court of Appeal, in substance because he decided to 
disapply the legislation establishing the SIIJ in light of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 18 May 2021, 
Asociaţia ‘Forumul Judecătorilor Din România’ and Others, in joined cases C-83/19, C-127/19, C-195/19, 
C-294/19,  C-355/19  and  C-379/19,  ECLI:EU:C:2021:393,  generated  such  concerns.  The  SCM  eventually 
rejected the disciplinary action by decision of 14 April 2022. 

41   In Decision No 230, of 23 March 2021, requesting the referral to the plenary of the SCM on this matter, the 
section  for prosecutors noted  the  ‘very low quality of the activity of the Judicial Inspection in the field of 
disciplinary  liability’,  including  the  violation,  by  both  the  inspectors  in  charge  of  the  cases  and  their 
management,  of  the  legal  provisions  applicable  to  disciplinary  investigations  (Superior  Council  of  the 
Magistracy, section for prosecutors, Decision No 230 of 23 March 2021). 

42   Information received from members of the SCM in the context of the country visit to Romania. 
43   On 20 October 2021, upon referral of the President of the SCM, the Judicial Inspection opened a disciplinary 
investigation  against  the  three  prosecutors  leading  the  ‘Initiative  for  Justice’  Association,  for  a  public 
statement urging to dismantle the SIIJ and to restore the competence of the specialised prosecution services. 
On 28 April 2022, the Judicial Inspection decided to exert the disciplinary action against one of those three 
prosecutors, on the basis of the offence of ‘manifestations detrimental to the honour or professional probity 
or to the prestige of the justice system’ foreseen in Art. 99 a) of Law no. 303/2004. As of May 2022, a total 
of  11  disciplinary  actions  were  still  pending  against  this  same  prosecutor.  Information  received  from 
magistrates’ associations in the context of the country visit to Romania. 

44   It did so in August 2021, requesting extensive data covering the past five years from the Prosecutors Office 
attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice  with deadlines overlapping  with the judicial vacation, 
thus impacting the daily work of services already affected by a lack of human resources. See Annex 4 of the 
input of the Romanian authorities for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. 

45   In  case  C-817/21,  R.I.  v  Inspecția  Judiciară,  N.L.,  lodged  on  21  December  2021,  the  Bucharest  Court  of 
Appeal  asks  whether  Article  2  and  the  second  subparagraph  of  Article  19(1)  of  the  Treaty  on  European 
Union,  Decision  2006/928  establishing  the  CVM  and  the  guarantees  of  independence  and  impartiality 
imposed  under  EU  law,  preclude  national  legislation  which  allows  the  chief  inspector  of  the  Judicial 
Inspectorate  to  issue  autonomously  normative  administrative  acts  and/or  an  individual  acts  laying  out  the 
organisation of the institutional framework of the Judicial Inspectorate for the selection of judicial inspectors 
and  the  assessment  of  their  activity,  the  conduct  of  the  inspection  activities,  and  the  appointment  of  the 
deputy chief inspector, where, under organic law, those persons alone may carry out, approve or reject acts 
of disciplinary investigation in respect of the chief inspector. 

8 

 
                                                                                                                                                        
Justice, the Government approved the Strategy and its action plan on 30 March 202246. The 
adoption and entry into force of the new Strategy is a milestone under Romania’s RRP47. The 
Strategy identifies, as areas of action, the independence, quality and efficiency of justice, on 
the one hand, and access to justice, on the other hand. The Strategy includes the reform of the 
justice laws, the elimination of inequities in the magistrates’ salaries and the award of service 
pensions, the modernisation  of the status  of judicial  staff and related legal  professions. The 
Government expects that the implementation of the Strategy will result in an increase of the 
perceived independence of justice48. 

Quality  

There  has  been  no  significant  improvement  as  regards  the  shortage  of  magistrates. 
Some steps have been taken in order to improve the human resources situation in the judicial 
system. As mentioned in the 2021 Rule of Law Report49, a law adopted in June 2021 allowed 
for  the  organisation  of  competitions  for  admission  to  the  National  Institute  of  Magistracy 
(INM). On 16 July 2021, the plenary of the SCM approved the Regulation for organising and 
carrying  out  the  competition  for  admission  in  the  magistracy50.  In  addition,  in  December 
2021,  the  SCM  appointed  139  graduates  of  the  INM  as  junior  judges  and  70  graduates  as 
junior  prosecutors.  However,  due  to  the  absence  of  competitions  for  admission  in  the 
magistracy  during  two  years,  and  a  number  of  retirements  that  still  exceeds  the  newly 
recruited  magistrates51,  the  lack  of  judicial  staff  continues  posing  a  risk  for  the  quality  and 
efficiency of justice. As of 31 December 2021, 669 out of 5072 judge positions were vacant, 
while the overall occupancy rate for prosecutors remained low, at 79.51%52. The new judicial 
strategy  2022-2025  envisages  a  number  of  measures  to  remedy  this  issue,  including  the 
modernisation of the status of judicial and auxiliary staff in courts and prosecutors’ offices to 
allow  judges  and  prosecutors  to  concentrate  on  judicial  work53.  It  also  sets  the  quantitative 
objective  to  ensure  an  occupancy  rate  of  95%  of  the  judge  positions  and  80-85%  of  the 
prosecutor positions by 2025.  

Several  projects  are  being  implemented  to  improve  the  digitalisation  of  the  justice 
system, in particular with a new centralised case management system. At the heart of the 

46   The Strategy and its Action Plan are both annexed to Government Decision No 436 of 30 March 2022 on the 

approval of the Strategy for the Development of the Judiciary 2022-2025 and its related Action Plan. 

47   Milestone 421, ‘Entry into force of the law approving the strategy for the development of the judiciary 2022-
2025’  (which  had  to  be  achieved  by  31  March  2022).  The  progress  in  implementing  the  strategy  will  be 
monitored and assessed using a set of indicators based on sources such as the EU Justice Scoreboard and the 
Rule of Law Report, following deadlines set out in the action plan. 

48   To 55-60% by 2025, according to the performance indicator set out in the action plan. 
49   2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Romania, p. 8. 
50   Contribution  from  the  Superior  Council  of  Magistracy  for  the  2022  Rule  of  Law  Report,  p.  1.  The 
competition, which took place between July 2021 and April 2022, covered 300 justice auditor positions (175 
for judge positions and 125 for prosecutor positions), out of which 281 were filled.  

51   In  2021,  256  judges  and  141  prosecutors  retired  from  the  magistracy  (Contribution  from  the  Superior 

Council of Magistracy for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 4). 

52   The  situation  particularly  critical  for  the  Prosecutor’s  Office  attached  to  the  High  Court  of  Cassation  and 
Justice,  the  National  Anti-corruption  Directorate  (DNA)  and  the  Directorate  for  the  Investigation  of 
Organised  Crime  and  Terrorism  (DIICOT),  whose  occupancy  rates  stood  respectively  at  76.72%  and 
77.97%. By Government Decision no. 744/2021 of 8 July 2021, the personnel scheme within DIICOT was 
supplemented with 96 positions (11 prosecutors, 45 experts and 40 clerks and officials). Input from Romania 
for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 11. 

53   As stated in the judicial strategy, an appropriate  level of staff numbers reflects directly  on the quality and 

efficiency of justice. 

9 

 
                                                 
digital  transformation  of  the  justice  system  is  the  implementation  of  ECRIS  V,  a  new  case 
management  system  with  a  centralised  architecture,  which  will  facilitate  the  digital 
interaction between litigants and judicial entities, as well as between the judicial institutions 
and other relevant institutions. This tool is expected to provide key functionalities supporting 
the digital  processing of cases in  courts and prosecution offices,  the  collection of statistical 
data  and  the  generation  of  certain  pre-defined  statistical  reports,  as  well  as  the  electronic 
transfer  of  data  between  different  actors,  including  courts  and  prosecution  offices. 
Investments under Romania’s RRP aim to ensure the full operationalisation of ECRIS V54, as 
well as the implementation of the digital goals set out in the strategy for the development of 
the  judiciary  2022-2025,  whose  second  strategic  objective  is  to  increase  the  quality  and 
efficiency of justice through the digital transformation of the justice system55. 

New online portals were made operational for the submission of court documents before 
the  High  Court  of  Cassation  and  Justice  and  for  the  publication  of  case-law.  Since  19 
November  2021,  an  online  portal  allowing  the  submission  of  applications  and  other 
documents56  is  available  for  all  sections  and  the  five-judge  panels  of  the  High  Court  of 
Cassation  and  Justice.  Users  of  the  portal  may  opt  for  the  electronic  service  of  procedural 
documents, including summons, the submissions of the parties and the court decisions in full. 
As  regards  the  online  accessibility  of  court  decisions,  the  ReJust  portal57  –  developed  and 
managed by the SCM – was made available with the intention to replace the ROLII portal58. 
The ReJust portal includes both final judgements and minutes of the proceedings of courts of 
first instance and appeal, as well as other court rulings in anonymized form59. Although the 
new portal was created to increase managerial stability by entrusting its operation fully to the 
SCM  and  to  ensure  full  respect  of  data  protection  rules60,  some  shortcomings  should  be 
addressed for it to fulfil its function adequately61 . 

54   According  to  milestone  164  of  its  RRP,  Romania  committed  to  fully  operationalize  ECRIS  V  by  31 
December  2025.  Romania’s  RRP  comprises  investments  to  ensure  among  others  the  technical  transition 
from  local  to  a  shared  central  server,  the  upgrade  and  finalisation  of  the  technical  infrastructure  for 
the 
teleworking  and  digitalisation  of  documents, 
implementation of a new secure videoconferencing system. 

the  upgrade  of  cybersecurity  capabilities  and 

55   Strategy  for  the  Development  of  the  Judiciary  2022-2025,  pp.  9-11,  and  its  annexed  Action  Plan.  The 
Strategy foresees to update the legal framework to generalise the use the of the electronic file, signatures and 
seals by judicial staff by December 2023, to implement IT governance development policies, to upgrade the 
IT  infrastructure  of  the  judicial  institutions  at  the  local  level  by  2024,  to  establish  and  operationalise  an 
integrated  data  centre  for  the  judiciary  by  2026,  and  to  elaborate  a  cross-judicial  sector  strategy  for  the 
digitisation of the physical archive by 2024. 

56  The  service 

is  available  free  of  charge  using  an  online  form  on  the  ‘ICCJ  Digital’  portal: 
https://www.iccj.ro/acasa/dosar-electronic/.  An online form  allowing for the  submission of applications for 
information  of  public  interest,  complaints  and  petitions  before  the  High  Court  was  made  available  on  the 
same 
https://www.iccj.ro/compartimentele/biroul-de-informare-si-relatii-publice/formular-de-
depunere-a-documentelor-in-format-electronic/.  

date: 

57   The portal is to be found at https://rejust.ro. 
58   The  ROLII  portal,  which  was  operated  by  a  foundation  in  collaboration  with  several  professional 
organisations on behalf of the SCM, is to be found at  http://www.rolii.ro/. On this portal, see  Commission 
Staff  Working  Document  (SWD(2017)  25  final),  Technical  Report  accompanying  the  report  from  the 
Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on Progress in Romania under the Cooperation and 
Verification Mechanism (COM(2017) 44 final), p. 19. 

59   It allows users to know the final outcome and the way in which procedural steps, such as certain exceptions, 

were resolved during the trial. Written input from the SCM for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 10. 

60   Information received from the SCM in the context of the country visit. 
61   In particular, it is currently not possible to perform searches by keywords or case number, thus limiting the 
practical  use  of  this  application.  Moreover,  the  level  of  anonymisation  of  the  decisions  made  available  is 

10 

 
                                                 
 
The territorial jurisdiction of the courts of first instance was redefined to even out their 
workload.  Following  an  analysis  of  the  caseload  in  courts  of  first  instance,  the  SCM 
redefined  their  territorial  jurisdiction62  in  order  to  even  out  their  workload  and  give 
prevalence to the principle of bringing justice closer to the citizens. The SCM will analyse the 
impact of this measure by the end of 2022 to assess the need to further readjust the territorial 
jurisdiction across counties63. 

Efficiency 

The  overall  efficiency  in  civil  and  commercial  cases  remains  stable,  but  decreased 
considerably for administrative cases. In 2020, the length of proceedings at first instance in 
civil  and  commercial  cases  increased  slightly  in  comparison  to  201964,  and  so  did  the 
estimated time needed to resolve litigious civil and commercial cases at all court instances65, 
while the clearance rate for resolving civil, commercial, administrative cases at first instance 
somewhat decreased to 97%66. As regards the efficiency in administrative cases, all indicators 
worsened significantly from 2019 to 2020, as the disposition time in first instance increased 
from 138 days to 609 days67, while the clearance rate dropped from 100.3% to 48.4%68 and 
the number of pending cases doubled, from 0.2 to 0.4 per 100 inhabitants69.  

The  Tax  and  Administrative  Litigation  Chamber  of  the  High  Court  of  Cassation  and 
Justice  is  facing  workload  challenges.  The  current  caseload  of  this  Chamber,  combined 
with the backlog already accumulated, is liable to jeopardise the observance of the reasonable 
length of proceedings requirement70. To overcome this challenge, upon proposal of the High 
Court of Cassation and Justice (HCCJ), the Ministry of Justice reduced the jurisdiction of the 
Tax  and  Administrative  Litigation  Chamber71.  However,  as  the  workload  of  the  latter  and, 
more generally, of the  HCCJ remains  high, the  Judicial  Strategy for 2022-202572 envisages 
the reorganisation of its jurisdiction and the adaptation of its personnel scheme73. 

currently  excessive,  as  it  notably  covers  the  names  of  the  parties,  of  the  members  of  the  court  and  of  the 
ECLI  number,  making  it  impossible  to  integrate  the  case-law  in  the  ECLI  Search  Engine  Portal.  Several 
technical issues, such as delays and timeouts, were also reported.  

62   Decision No. 102/2021 of the Plenary of the SCM, of 10 June 2021, on determining the localities assigned to 
the first instance courts in each county, further amended and supplemented by SCM Decision No. 148/2021, 
of 21 October 2021. 

63   Information received from the SCM in the context of the country visit to Romania. 
64   Figure 7, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
65   Figure 8, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
66   Figure 11, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
67   Figure 9, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
68   Figure 13, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
69   Figure 16, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
70   In 2021, 12 108 cases  was pending  before  this  Chamber. Though  the  number of adjudicated cases (6 355) 
exceeded the number of newly entered cases (4 772), the backlog as of the end of 2021 was still high (5 753 
cases). Information received from the High Court of Cassation and Justice in the context of the country visit 
to Romania. 

71   By Government Emergency Ordinance No. 102/2021, of 22 September 2021, amending and supplementing 
Law No. 213/2015 on Policyholder Guarantee Fund, appeals in the area regulated by this law were excluded 
from the jurisdiction of the Tax and Administrative Litigation Chamber of the HCCJ. 

72   See Section I. 
73   Under the strategic objective ‘Strengthening institutional capacity of the HCCJ’, the Ministry of Justice is to 
propose amendments  to the legislation regarding the jurisdiction of the  HCCJ by December 2022, and the 
Government is to approve the draft normative act in this respect by March 2023. Moreover, the number of 
additional positions necessary within the HCCJ will be determined by July 2023, and those positions are to 

11 

 
                                                                                                                                                        
 
Romania  remains  under  enhanced  supervision  by  the  Committee  of  Ministers  of  the 
Council of Europe for the excessive length of civil and criminal proceedings, and lack of 
effective remedy in this respect74. While in 2016 the Committee of Ministers welcomed the 
wide-ranging  general  measures  adopted  to  resolve  the  problem  of  excessive  length  of  civil 
and  criminal  proceedings,  it  further  invited  the  Romanian  authorities  to  continue  to  closely 
monitor  the  impact  of  these  measures  and  to  provide  complete  statistical  data  enabling  the 
Committee of Ministers to fully assess the situation75. The impact of these measures on the 
issues reflected in the leading case Vlad v. Romania76 remains to be assessed.  

II.  ANTI-CORRUPTION FRAMEWORK  

The National Anti-Corruption Strategy for 2021-2025 was adopted in 2021 and coordination 
of  its  implementation  is  ensured  by  the  Ministry  of  Justice.  The  specialised  anti-corruption 
prosecution,  the  National  Anti-Corruption  Directorate  (DNA),  has  the  competence  to 
investigate  serious77  corruption  cases,  while  the  Prosecutor-General’s  office  investigates  all 
other  corruption  cases.  DNA  also  investigates  offences  committed  against  the  financial 
interests of the EU as well as certain categories of serious financial and economic crime. A 
specialised anti-corruption directorate (DGA) exists in the Ministry of Interior, competent for 
integrity  and  corruption  issues  within  the  staff  employed  by  the  Ministry,  including  the 
police.  The  National  Integrity  Agency  (ANI)  carries  out  administrative  investigations 
regarding  conflicts  of  interests,  incompatibilities  of  activities  and  unjustified  wealth,  and  is 
responsible  for  the  monitoring  and  verification  of  declarations  of  assets,  including  of  all 
elected  officials.  The  National  Agency  for  the  Management  of  Seized  Assets  (ANABI) 
ensures the management of seized and confiscated criminal assets, and facilitates the tracing 
and identification of proceeds. 

The perception among experts and business executives is that the level of corruption in 
the public sector remains high. In the 2021 Corruption Perceptions Index by Transparency 
International,  Romania  scores  45/100  and  ranks  25th  in  the  European  Union  and  66th 
globally78.  This  perception  has  been  relatively  stable79  over  the  past  five  years80.  The 2022 
Special  Eurobarometer  on  Corruption  shows  that  72%  of  respondents  consider  corruption 
widespread  in  their  country  (EU  average  68%)  and  46%  of  respondents  feel  personally 

be  filled  by  December  2023.  Finally,  it  is  planned  to  provide  the  HCCJ  with  a  new  seat  to  perform  its 
functions in optimal conditions by December 2025. 

74   Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 26 November 2013, Vlad v. Romania, 40756/06. 
75   Committee of Ministers, 1259th meeting (7-8 June 2016). 
76   Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 26 November 2013, Vlad v. Romania, 40756/06. 
77   Article  13  of  Emergency  Order  No 43  of  4  April  2002  on the  National  Anti-Corruption  Directorate  states 
that the DNA is competent to prosecute offences as referred to in Law No 78 of 8 May 2002 on preventing, 
detecting and sanctioning corruption offences, committed under certain circumstances.  

78   Transparency International (2022), Corruption Perceptions Index 2021. The level of perceived corruption is 
categorised  as  follows:  low  (the  perception  among  experts  and  business  executives  of  public  sector 
corruption scores above 79); relatively low (scores between 79-60), relatively high (scores between 59-50), 
high (scores below 50). 

79   In 2015 the score was 46, while, in 2020, the score is 44. The score significantly increases/decreases when it 
changes  more  than  five  points;  improves/deteriorates  (changes  between  4-5  points);  is  relatively  stable 
(changes from 1-3 points) in the last five years. 

80   The Eurobarometer data on corruption perception and experience of citizens and businesses as reported last 
year is updated every second year. The latest data set is the Special Eurobarometer 502 (2020) and the Flash 
Eurobarometer 482 (2019). 

12 

 
                                                                                                                                                        
affected by corruption in their daily lives (EU average 24%)81. As regards businesses, 88% of 
companies consider that corruption is widespread (EU average 63%) and 70% consider that 
that corruption is a problem when doing business (EU average 34%)82. Furthermore, 44% of 
respondents find that there are enough successful prosecutions to deter people from  corrupt 
practices  (EU  average  34%)83,  while  35%  of  companies  believe  that  people  and  businesses 
caught for bribing a senior official are appropriately punished (EU average 29%)84.  

The  National  Anti-Corruption  Strategy  for  2021-2025  was  adopted,  and  its  effective 
implementation  would  require  determined  political  support.  In  2022,  the  OECD 
evaluated the 2016-2020 National Anti-Corruption Strategy and acknowledged the significant 
steps  that  Romania  took  towards  strengthening  its  anti-corruption  and  integrity  policies. 
However,  it  also  noted  that  the  lack  of  political  support  to  implement  important  legislative 
reforms was an important challenge85. The new National Anti-Corruption Strategy for 2021-
2025  was  approved  by  the  Government  in  December  202186.  The  strategy  has  five  general 
objectives:  increasing  the  implementation  of  integrity  measures  at  organisational  level; 
reducing  the  impact  of  corruption  on  citizens;  strengthening  institutional  management  and 
administrative capacity to prevent and combat corruption; strengthening integrity in priority 
areas,  such  as  health  care,  public  procurement,  and  local  administration; and  increasing  the 
performance of the fight against corruption by criminal law and administrative means87. 

The  effectiveness  of  the  investigation  and  sanctioning  of  corruption  continues  to 
improve, including by taking forward cases that were discontinued for some years. The 
number of complaints from citizens and institutions on alleged corruption further increased88. 
DNA  continued  the  positive  trend  both  as  regards  the  number  of  indictments  and  the 
reduction of its backlog of cases89, referred to in the 2021 Rule of Law Report90. The General 
Prosecution  Service  also  continued  the  effective  prosecution  of  corruption  and  corruption-
assimilated  offences91.  Some  decisions  of  the  Constitutional  Court  effectively  led  to  the 

81   Special  Eurobarometer  523  on  Corruption  (2022).  The  Eurobarometer  data  on  citizens’  corruption 
perception and experience is updated every second year. The previous data set is the Special Eurobarometer 
502 (2020). 

82   Flash Eurobarometer 507 on Businesses’ attitudes towards corruption in the EU (2022). The Eurobarometer 
data on business attitudes towards corruption as is updated every second year. The previous data set is the 
Flash Eurobarometer 482 (2019). 

83   Special Eurobarometer 523 on Corruption (2022). 
84   Flash Eurobarometer 507 on Businesses’ attitudes towards corruption in the EU (2022). 
85   OECD, Evaluation of the Romanian Anti-Corruption Strategy 2016-2020, p. 3. 
86   This  is  also  set  out  in  Romania’s  RRP,  whose  Milestone  426  required  the  ‘Entry  into  force  of  the 

Government Decision approving new National Anti-Corruption Strategy’. 

87   OECD,  Evaluation  of  the  Romanian  Anti-corruption  Strategy  2016-2020,  p.  69.  Report  from  the 
Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on Progress in Romania under the Cooperation and 
Verification Mechanism (COM(2021) 370 final), p. 23. 

88   National Anti-Corruption Directorate (DNA), 2021 Activity Report, summary. These went up from 1858 in 

2020 to 2139 in 2021. 

89   National Anti-Corruption Directorate (DNA), 2021 Activity Report, p. 32, 118 and summary. Over 2021, a 
total of 317 (319 in 2020) cases concerning 730 (520 in 2020) defendants were sent to the court. Of these, 
565  (370  in  2020)  were  prosecuted  by  indictment  and  165  (150  in  2020)  by  plea  agreement.  The  courts 
rendered 255 (269 in 2020) final judgements and 427 (491 in 2020) defendants were convicted. The number 
of pending cases was 6076 in 2021, compared to 6180 in 2020.  

90   2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Romania, pp. 11-12. 
91   Over 2021, a total of 1 493 (1 895 in 2020) cases involving non-serious corruption offences were solved, of 
which  201  (316  in  2020)  indictments  and  plea  agreements  were  issued,  by  which  253  (414  in  2020) 
defendants  were sent to trial. There  were  142 (203 in 2020) final judgments, by  which 151  (207 in 2020) 
individuals were convicted (input from Romania for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 26). 

13 

 
                                                 
termination  of  criminal  procedures  in  corruption  cases  against  national  politicians,  by 
rendering null and void court judgments based on the question of the composition of the court 
panels92.  On  21  December  2021,  the  CJEU  ruled  that  EU  law  precludes  the  application  of 
national rules or a national practice similar to the case-law of the Constitutional Court if it is 
capable of giving rise to a systemic risk of impunity for corruption offences or acts of fraud 
affecting the financial interests of the Union93. Following the CJEU judgment, in April 2022, 
the  HCCJ  upheld  prison  sentences  in  a  high-profile  case  from  2018,  which  had  been 
suspended on the grounds of unlawful court composition94. In May 2022, the HCCJ ruled in 
another  high-profile  case,  implementing  the  CJEU  ruling  to  disregard  the  case-law  of  the 
Constitutional Court on the legality of the composition of judges’ panels, and sentenced the 
main defendant to imprisonment for bribery95. 

Amendments  to  the  Codes  of  Criminal  Law  and  Criminal  Procedure  are  being 
prepared. Concrete steps were taken to take forward the revision of the Criminal Code and 
the  Criminal  Procedure  Code96  and  bring  them  in  line  with  the  number  of  far-reaching 
decisions of the Constitutional Court since 201497, including on the corruption related crime 
technical  supervision  methods  (wiretapping)99.  An 
of  abuse 
interinstitutional  working  group  has  been  in  place  since  2019  to  examine  legislative 
initiatives to amend the codes, with a first publication on the Ministry of Justice website in 
summer  2021  and  the  government  tabled  its  proposals  in  June  2022100.  In  particular,  it  is 
proposed  to  amend  the  offence  of  abuse  of  power  in  the  Criminal  Code  to  specify  that  a 
‘violation  of  a  duty’  should  follow  from  a  law,  a  Government  Ordinance,  a  Government 

in  office98  and  on 

92   Constitutional Court of Romania, Decisions no. 685/2018 and no. 417/2019. The Constitutional Court ruled 
that the practice of appointing de jure members in the composition of the five-judge panels of the HCCJ was 
contrary  to  the  rule  that  required  that  all  members  be  drawn  by  lot.  It  also  ruled  that,  contrary  to  the 
applicable legislation, the HCCJ had failed to establish specialist three-judge panels to deal at first instance 
with corruption offences. For more details, see 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law 
situation in Romania, p. 10. 

93   Judgment of the Court of Justice of 21 December 2021, Euro Box Promotion e.a., in joined Cases C‑357/19, 

C‑379/19, C‑547/19, C‑811/19 and C‑840/19, EU:C:2021:1034, para. 213. 

94   Decision of the High Court of Cassation and Justice of 7 April 2022. 
95   Decision the High Court of Cassation and Justice of 10 May 2022 in case 105/1/2019. 
96   Milestone  424  of  Romania’s  RRP,  entitled  ‘Amendment  of  the  Criminal  Code  and  Criminal  Procedure 
Code’ states that those amendments must enter into force by 31 December 2022 and ‘bring the provisions of 
the  Criminal  Code  and  the  Criminal  Procedure  Code  that  entered  into  force  in  2014  in  line  with  the 
Constitutional  provisions,  in  accordance  with  the  relevant  national  Constitutional  Court  decisions  on  the 
constitutionality aspects of the recent changes made to the Criminal Code and Criminal procedure.’ 

97   The absence of policy and legislative solutions to the rapid succession of far reaching Constitutional Court 
decisions  has  led  to  increased  obstacles  and  legal  uncertainty  regarding  the  investigation,  prosecution  and 
sanctioning  of  high-level  corruption  cases.  It  has  led  to  cases  failing  in  court,  legal  uncertainty  on  the 
admissibility of evidence, as well as to the restart of investigations or trial. Report from the Commission to 
the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  on  Progress  in  Romania  under  the  Cooperation  and  Verification 
Mechanism (COM(2021) 370 final), p. 21 and 2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law 
situation in Romania, p. 13. 

98   Constitutional Court of Romania, Decision of 2016. As a result of uncertainty in the definition of  the crime 
of abuse of office, investigations were dropped or cases annulled in court. The legislator therefore needs to 
clarify the definition in the Criminal Code.  

99 A number of decisions were ruled in the period 2016-2020 regarding the use of wiretapping. Constitutional 
Court rulings meant that for any future cases, the prosecution should no longer use the technical and human 
capacity of the Intelligence Services to collect evidence to be used in criminal procedures and should rather 
establish its own capability. 

100  Amongst  others,  the  amendments  aim  to  ensure  that  the  courts,  together  with  the  prosecutorial  offices, 
should verify whether the evidence gathered in the context of the protocol had been administrated with full 
respect of the law, and decide on appropriate legal measures.  

14 

 
                                                 
Emergency  Ordinance,  or  another  normative  act  which,  at  the  date  of  its  adoption,  was 
assimilated  into  law.  Lack  of  clarity  on  this  offence  had  inhibited  its  prosecution  and  it  is 
expected that the amendment will have a positive effect on the track record of convictions for 
this crime101. It is also proposed, in line with a Constitutional Court judgment102 and a 2018 
Opinion  of  the  Venice  Commission103,  to  adopt  strengthened  safeguards  for  the  use  of 
evidence obtained from electronic recordings. In May 2022, the civil society and magistrates 
associations  deplored  the  lack  of  transparency  and  consultation  on  the  final  versions  of  the 
laws  and  asked  the  minister  to  make  public  the  texts,  before  submitting  them  to  the 
Government for adoption104. On 2 June 2022, the Ministry of Justice sent the draft laws to the 
Government for approval. 

The competences of the DNA have been reduced, which could have a negative impact on 
its work and the investigation of some cases. As a result of law abolishing the SIIJ105, the 
DNA  lost  the  competence  to  investigate  corruption  cases  involving  judges  of  the 
Constitutional Court. Moreover, the Ministry of Justice proposed in June to remove the legal 
possibility106 for the DNA to prosecute serious criminal offences ancillary to corruption, such 
as  fraud  and  money  laundering,  when  the  investigations  into  these  offences  are  separated 
from  the  corruption  case,  thereby  codifying  a  decision  of  the  Constitutional  Court107.  This 
decision  has  a  retroactive  effect  and  consequently  has  an  impact  on  those  ongoing  DNA 
investigations that can be separated, as they will need to be restarted, with the risk that cases 
will fall due to the statute of limitation.  

Given the remaining concerns as regards the new system replacing the SIIJ, its impact 
on investigating and prosecuting corruption offences remains to be seen. The 2021 Rule 
of  Law  and  CVM  Reports  listed  a  series  of  concerns  as  to  the  effective  treatment  of  some 
high-level corruption cases by the SIIJ108. In the SIIJ’s three years of existence, it only sent 
seven  cases  to  court109.  As  explained  in  Section  I  above,  in  March  2022  the  legislator 
transferred SIIJ’ competences to the Prosecutor’s Offices attached to the HCCJ. The Venice 

101  This  amendment  of  Article  297  of  the  Criminal  Code  responds  to  Decision  No.  405/2016  of  the 
Constitutional  Court  regarding  the  lack  of  clarity  in  the  offence  definition.  Reportedly,  801  criminal 
proceedings  regarding  the  offence  of  abuse  of  office  were  discontinued  as  an  effect  of  this  decision, 
according to Unio – EU law journal, 30 January 2021, amount to a total loss of EUR 426 million, according 
to G4 media on 28 May 2020. 

102  Decision No. 26/2019 of 16 January 2019. 
103  Venice  Commission  Opinion  on  amendments  to  the  criminal  code  and  the  code  of  criminal  procedure, 

Opinion 930/2018 of 20 October 2018, pp. 28-29. 

104  Romanian  Judges  Forum  Association,  press  release  of  4  May  2022,  ‘Magistrates’  Associations  and  Civil 
Society:  We  urge  the  Minister  of  Justice  to  urgently  publish  draft  justice  laws  and  criminal  codes  and  to 
submit them to the Venice Commission’. 

105  As a result of the law dismantling the Section for the Investigation of Offences in the Judiciary (see below; 

see also Section I – Justice System). 

106  Article  13(5)  of  the  Government  Emergency  Ordinance  no.  43/2002  on  the  National  Anti-Corruption 

Directorate. 

107  Decision No. 231 of 6 April 2021. 
108  2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Romania, p. 12 and Report from 
the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on Progress in Romania under the Cooperation 
and Verification Mechanism (COM(2021) 370 final), p. 4.  

109   The  SIIJ  had  a  total  of  9 651  cases  to  solve,  of  which  it  solved  between  2018  and  2022  a  total  of  2 000 
cases.  From these cases, the  SIIJ issued 7 indictments and sued 9 defendants, leaving the number of open 
cases at 7002 in  March 2022 (information received  from  Prosecutor General in the context of the country 
visit to Romania).  

15 

 
                                                 
Commission110 and the Prosecutor General111 consider it unlikely that the new structure will 
be  better  placed  to  conduct  investigations  into  allegations  of  corruption  by  judges  and 
prosecutors than the DNA as the specialised prosecution service112. The lack of expertise to 
conduct investigations into complex corruption cases, as well as insufficient human resources 
and heavy workload could also prevent cases  from being heard within a reasonable time113. 
The strict criteria needed by prosecutors to be appointed in the new structure will also have 
resource consequences for the number of prosecutors authorised to take on corruption cases 
against magistrates114. The new law dismantling the SIIJ also maintains the rule according to 
which, if other persons are investigated for corruption together with judges and prosecutors, 
the  whole  corruption  file  would  be  transferred  from  DNA  to  the  designated  prosecutors,  a 
point  identified  by  CVM  reports  and  the  Venice  Commission  as  one  of  the  major  reasons 
why the SIIJ was seen to damage the effectiveness of anti-corruption work115. However, the 
new law envisages that cases will now only be joined if ‘for reasons of good conduct of the 
prosecution, the case cannot be disjoined’116. Monitoring the practical implementation of this 
rule will be important to ensure that it does  not create practical  obstacles to  anti-corruption 
investigations. 

Challenges  remain  in  recruiting  prosecutors  within  the  DNA,  in  particular  due  to 
dissuasive seniority requirements. In March 2021, the DNA had a 75% occupancy rate of 
prosecutors117, and in March 2022, this rate remained the same118. Under the RRP, Romania 
committed to increase it to 85% by 30 June 2023119. In order to be appointed to the DNA, the 
law  currently  states  that  prosecutors  must  have  at  least  10  years  seniority.  The  seniority 
requirement has been identified as a major reason for the limited number of applications to 
fill  in  the  existing  vacancies120.  Other  factors  include  the  high  workload,  relatively  low 

110  Venice Commission opinion on the draft law dismantling of the Section for the Investigation of Offences in 

the Judiciary (CDL-AD(2022)003), p. 8. 

111  Written submission received from the Prosecutor-General in the context of the country visit. 
112  In fact, the draft proposal of 2021 aimed to transfer the competence from the SIIJ to the DNA, see GRECO 

Fourth Evaluation Report - Second Interim Compliance Report, p. 10. 

113  As  noted  in  the  judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  18  May  2021,  Asociaţia  ‘Forumul  Judecătorilor  Din 
România’  and  Others,  in  joined  cases  C-83/19,  C-127/19,  C-195/19,  C-294/19,  C-355/19  and  C-379/19, 
EU:C:2021:393, para. 221-222. 

114  At least 12 years’ experience is required for those designated to work for the prosecutors’ offices attached to 
the  courts  of  appeal  and  at  least  15  years’  experience  is  required  in  respect  of  the  Prosecutor’s  Office 
attached  to  the  High  Court  of  Cassation  and  Justice,  as  opposed  to  requiring  a  more  reduced  but  targeted 
experience relating to prosecuting economic and financial crime. In total a maximum of 59 prosecutors will 
be appointed for a renewable four-year term. 

115  Venice Commission, Opinion on the draft law dismantling of the Section for the Investigation of Offences in 

the Judiciary (CDL-AD(2022)003), p. 3-4.  

116  Article  3(5)  of  the  new  Law.  In  case  of  disagreement  between  two  prosecutorial  offices,  the  Prosecutor 

General decides if the cases remain joined. 

117  2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Romania, 12. 
118 In March 2021, there were 145 prosecutor posts occupied out of 194 and in March 2022, 147 were occupied 
out  of  195,  as  reported  by  the  Romanian  government  in  the  context  of  the  RRP.  The  total  number  of 
occupied posts in DNA in December 2021 was 733 posts occupied out of 862, see National Anti-Corruption 
Directorate (DNA), 2021 Activity Report, p. 96. 

119  Milestone  429  of  Romania’s  RRP  requires  an  ‘Occupation  rate  of  85%  of  National  Anti-Corruption 
Directorate prosecutor positions attained’ (by 30 June 2023). The data comes from the (March 2022) Interim 
report  on  Measure  429.  ‘Occupancy  rate  of  85%  of  public  prosecutor  positions  in  the  National  Anti-
Corruption Directorate’. 

120  As  acknowledged  in  the  input  from  Romania  for  the  Rule  of  Law  Report,  p.  27  and  National  Anti-

Corruption Directorate (DNA), 2021 Activity Report, p. 8.  

16 

 
                                                 
salaries121  and  the  oral  examination  that  is  broadcast  (contrary  to  examinations  in  other 
prosecution  departments)122.  A  competition  to  recruit  29  prosecutors  was  organised  in  the 
first  half  of  2022,  but  only  11  people  applied,  of  which  two  have  withdrawn  their 
candidacy123. Given that on 14 July 2021, the Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional a 
law  decreasing  the  seniority  requirement  to  seven  years124,  the  government  intends  to 
maintain  the  ten-year  seniority  requirement  for  appointment  in  DNA125.  Finally,  the 
possibility  for  magistrates  to  be  delegated,  seconded  and  transferred  to  the  DNA  are  also 
limited.  The  DNA  relies  on  a  significant  proportion  of  delegated  prosecutors126  and  has 
requested  that  the  seventeen  prosecutors  that  ceased  working  in  the  Directorate  would  be 
replaced  by  prosecutors  by  delegation,  but  only  judicial  police  officers  were  seconded127. 
Given the shortage of prosecutors in  the  DNA, delegation, secondment  and transfer remain 
important tools.  

The filling of the post of President of the National Integrity Agency (ANI) and setting up 
of a mandatory electronic asset declaration platform facilitated the work of the Agency. 
The  ANI  continues  to  investigate  incompatibilities,  conflicts  of  interest  and  unjustified 
wealth128.  After  more  than  one  year  and  a  half  without  a  president,  at  the  proposal  of  the 
National Integrity Council129 a new president for the ANI was appointed130. A vice-president 
will  be  appointed.  A  system  for  electronic  submissions  of  assets  and  interest  disclosures 
became operational in May 2021. Since January 2022, it is mandatory for asset and interest 
declarations  to  be  filled  in  electronically  and  the  public  can  consult  them  online131.  This 

121  Input  from  the  SCM  and  the  National  Integrity  Agency  (ANI)  during  the  country  visit  carried  out  in  the 

context of the 2022 Rule of Law Report.  

122  Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on Progress in Romania under the 

Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (COM(2021) 370 final), p. 21. 

123  Written contribution from the SCM in the context of the country visit.  
124  Constitutional Court, Decision No. 514, of 14 July 2021, The Court argued that, as the DNA is a specialised 
department  within  the  Prosecutor’s  Office  attached  to  the  High  Court  of  Cassation  and  Justice,  its 
prosecutors  should  have  the  same  seniority  as  prosecutors  at  the  Prosecutor’s  Office  attached  to  the  High 
Court of Cassation and Justice (12 years). DNA and DIICOT had sent to the Constitutional Court an Amicus 
Curiae Memorandum, in which they submit that the seniority required for the operation within a prosecutor's 
office  structure  is  not  provided  for  in  constitutional  law.  They  argued  that  the  reduction  to  7  years  of 
seniority is necessary to address the lack of capacity and that without it, the effectiveness of the fight against 
corruption  is  at  risk.  See  Stiripesurse.ro  (2021),  ‘DNA  and  DIICOT  make  a  common  front  and  send  a 
memorandum to the CCR: they support the reduction of seniority for prosecutors’. 

125 Article 86(2) in conjunction with article 94(2) of the Draft Law on the Judicial organisation. 
126 As mentioned in the 2021 Rule of Law report, Country Chapter on Romania, p. 12, DNA operated with 14 

delegated prosecutors out of 145 filled positions, i.e. 10% of staff was delegated. 

127 National Anti-Corruption Directorate (DNA), 2021 Activity Report, p. 96. DNA reports that 17 prosecutors 
have ceased working in the Directorate, of which 6 by leaving the Directorate, 2 by termination of delegation 
and 9 by retirement.  In order to  ensure that the  work is properly carried out,  72 delegations by prosecutor 
were requested. In the course of 2021, the Chief Prosecutor of the DNA appointed 31 judicial police officers 
and for 36 judicial police officers the secondment was extended for 6 years.  

128  In  2021,  the  National  Integrity  Agency  finalised  1  329  cases  and  224  cases  have  remained  definitive  and 
irrevocable. The same year, 950 administrative fines were applied, for failure to submit assets and interest 
disclosures  in  legal  terms,  for  non-disciplinary  sanctions  applied  after  the  ascertaining  act  remained  final, 
and  for  failure  to  comply  with  the  legal  provisions.  In  2020,  only  204  fines  were  applied.  Numbers  from 
Input from Romania for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, pp. 20-21. 

129  Out  of  15  members,  the  Council  functioned  in  2021  with  only  9  members,  with  the  rest  of  the  positions 

waiting for nominations.  

130  The new President had been Vice-President since 2017. Report of the Romanian Senate of 29 June 2021. 
131  In a dedicated website to be found at http://declaratii.integritate.eu/. This concerns submissions made since 

2008.  

17 

 
                                                 
increases  transparency  towards  the  public  and  facilitates  ANI’s  work132.  The  ANI  is 
developing  its  own  technological  capacity  to  identify  by  itself  suspicious  declarations  of 
assets and interests, on the basis of risk indicators, and intends to work more closely with the 
National Agency for the Management of Seized Assets (ANABI)133.  

Increased  focus  on  integrity  of  law  enforcement  led  to  positive  results.  The  highest 
proportion  of  petty  corruption  concerns  road  traffic  offences,  covering  almost  exclusively 
police officers134. The Anti-Corruption Directorate (DGA) in the Ministry of Interior carried 
out 59 professional integrity tests on its employees (including police officers) in 2021. In one 
of these cases, the employee received sums of money or benefits not to perform the duties of 
the service, and in three cases there were indications of violations of professional ethics135. In 
2021, 50 integrity incidents were reported (compared to 47 in 2020), which concerned 111 of 
its employees (versus 185 in 2020). The DGA organised 883 education activities in 2021 to 
promote integrity, with 89 454 participants, including students of driving schools136.  

The  legal framework  on  integrity  remains  fragmented.  As  reported  in  the  2021  Rule  of 
Law  report,  rulings  of  the  High  Court  of  Cassation  and  Justice  undid  some  changes  to  the 
integrity laws that weakened the ability of the ANI to carry out its work137. In this respect, the 
ANI  and  other  stakeholders  have  highlighted  the  need  to  further  improve  the  stability  and 
clarity of the legal framework for integrity138, and to modernise it139. Currently, six legislative 
proposals  to  amend  the  integrity  framework  are  pending  before  the  Parliament,  and  ANI 
delivered a positive opinion on only one of them140. In its national RRP, Romania committed 
to  have  a  consolidated  law  on  integrity  in  force  by  2024141.  ANI  has  partnered  with 
Transparency International and the Ministry of Justice to carry this work forward142. 

The value of assets  confiscated by the National  Agency for the  Management of Seized 
Assets (ANABI) has increased. ANABI seized almost EUR 57 million in 2021 compared to 
almost EUR 34 million in 2020143. The national Asset Recovery Strategy 2021-2025 includes 

132  According  to  ANI,  the  technological  gains  compensate  for  being  formally  understaffed  (information 

received from ANI in the context of the country visit to Romania).  

133  Information received from ANI in the context of the country visit to Romania 
134  Information received from the Prosecutor General on the context of the country visit of Romania. 
135  Anti-Corruption Directorate, Ministry of Interior, Annual Report 2021, p. 11. There are no details available 

on these three cases as they are still in the stage of investigation. 

136  Anti-Corruption Directorate, Ministry of Interior, Annual Report 2021, p. 10.  
137  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report,  Country  Chapter  on  the  rule  of  law  situation  in  Romania,  p.  14.  The  first 
amendment set a prescription deadline of three years from the facts that determine the existence of a state of 
conflict  of  interest  or  incompatibility,  and  resulted  in  the  closure  of  a  high  number  of  ongoing  cases  and 
doubts  on  the  possibility  to  impose  sanctions.  The  second  amendment  introduced  a  lowered  sanctioning 
regime  regarding  conflict  of  interests  for  local  elected  officials,  which  ANI  considered  does  not  allow  for 
dissuasive sanctions. 

138  Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on Progress in Romania under the 

Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (COM(2021) 370 final), p. 18.  

139  ANI mentions beneficial ownership and virtual (information received from ANI in the context of the country 

visit to Romania).  

140  Input from Romania for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 21. 
141  Milestone  no.  431  of  Romania’s  RRP  states:  ‘Consolidated  laws  on  integrity  shall  enter  into  force.  The 
update of the integrity legislation shall be realized based on a prior evaluation and analysis of the integrity 
laws,  together  with  an  initial  clustering  of  the  normative  acts.  Within  the  second  phase  of  the  project,  the 
existing laws shall either be unified and updated, or new normative acts shall be proposed.’ 

142  Information received from ANI, NIC and Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit to Romania.  
143  Annual Activity Report 2021, National Agency for the Management of Seized Assets, p. 39.  

18 

 
 
                                                 
an action plan with legislative measures for expanding the Agency’s mandate. The entry into 
force  of  such  legislation  by  30  June  2022  is  a  milestone  in  Romania‘s  RRP144.  ANABI 
stressed that the extension of its mandate should be backed-up with an investment plan145.  

From the two parliamentary chambers, the Senate still has not defined objective criteria 
to  decide  on  requests  for  lifting  parliamentary  immunities.  The  lack  of  reasoning  of 
decisions  taken  by  the  Parliament  in  the  past  –  as  well  as  the  number  of  occasions  when 
Parliament did not allow investigation to proceed – led to concerns about the objectivity of 
these  decisions146.  To  remedy  this,  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  had  amended  its  rules  of 
procedure  in  2019,  in  line  with  GRECO  and  the  Venice  Commission’s  suggestions147. 
However, the Senate has not  yet adopted such rules148. The Chamber of Deputies approved 
the  request  to  authorise  the  investigation  of  a  former  Minister  and  Deputy,  and  the  Senate 
approved the request to authorise the investigation of a former Minister and Senator, despite a 
first negative opinion from the Legal Committee149. 

Limited provisions on revolving doors are available in various pieces of legislation, even 
if there is no uniform regulation in this respect, which remains a concern. As mentioned 
in the 2021 Rule of Law Report150, the rules on revolving doors are limited and scattered over 
different laws151. Apart from a rule for public servants who, in exercising their function, have 
carried  out  monitoring  and  control  activities  over  state-owned  enterprises,  there  are  no 
regulations  concerning  cooling-off  periods  for  key  decision-makers.  The  National  Anti-
Corruption  Strategy  for  2021-2025  sets  out  the  establishment,  by  2024,  of  a  uniform 
regulatory  framework  governing  post-employment  bans  for  public  officials  moving  to  the 
private  sector,  procedures  for  monitoring  compliance  with  those  prohibitions  and  penalties 
for  their  infringement,  and  the  establishment  of  a  priori  verification  procedures  by  private 
sector employers of compliance with employment bans. 

The  enforcement  of  the  Code  of  Conduct  and  the  absence  of  rules  on  lobbying  for 
parliamentarians  remain  a  concern.  Since  the  adoption  of  the  Code  of  Conduct  for 
members of Parliament in 2017, concerns have been raised regarding various inconsistencies 
in  the code as well  as  the lack of proper enforcement152. The Parliament has not  addressed 
these  concerns  so  far153.  Despite  being  raised  by  GRECO  on  a  number  of  occasions154, the 
absence of rules on how members of Parliament engage with lobbyists and other third parties 

144  Milestone no. 422 of Romania’s RRP requires the ‘Entry into force of the law amending the powers of the 

National Agency for the Management of Seized Assets.’ 

145  Information received Input from ANABI in the context of the country visit to Romania. 
146  GRECO Fourth Evaluation Round - Evaluation Report, pp. 25-26. 
147  GRECO Fourth Evaluation Round - Interim Compliance Report, p. 12. 
148  GRECO Fourth Evaluation Round - Second Interim Compliance Report, p. 4. 
149  Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on Progress in Romania under the 

Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (COM(2021) 370 final), p. 23. 

150 2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Romania, p. 16. 
151  Law  No.  161/2003  on  certain  steps  for  assuring  transparency  in  performing  high  official  positions,  public 
and business positions, for prevention and sanctioning the corruption. Revolving doors are also regulated in 
Law No 98/2016 on public procurement, Law No 672/2002 on internal public audit, Emergency Ordinance. 
no.  66/2011  on  the  prevention,  detection  and  sanctioning  of  irregularities  in  the  obtaining  and  use  of 
European funds and/or related national public funds and the Law on Competition No 21/1996. 

152  GRECO  Fourth  Evaluation  Round  -  Interim  Compliance  Report,  p.  4;  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report,  Country 

Chapter on the rule of law situation in Romania, p. 16. 

153  GRECO Fourth Evaluation Round - Second Interim Compliance Report, p. 4. 
154 GRECO Fourth Evaluation Round  - Evaluation Report,  p. 20; GRECO Fourth Evaluation Round  - Interim 
Compliance Report, p. 9; GRECO Fourth Evaluation Round - Second Interim Compliance Report, p. 3. 

19 

 
                                                 
seeking  to  influence  the  legislative  process  remains  a  concern.  It  is  a  well  established 
principle that countries should have in place lobbying regulations to ensure transparency and 
accountability  of  such  activities  in  accordance  with  European  standards155.  Furthermore, 
while  members  of  Parliament  have  to  declare  gifts,  there  are  no  rules  that  require  these 
declarations  to  be  made  public  or  controlled.  There  are  also  no  clear  restrictions  on  gifts, 
hospitality, favours and other benefits156. 

A  comprehensive  protection  of  whistleblowers  is  still  missing.  The  Ministry  of  Justice 
announced at the end of 2020 a draft law on the protection of whistleblowers, which would 
aim to transpose Directive (EU) 2019/1937 on whistleblowers’ protection. The draft law was 
adopted  by  the  Senate  in  April  2022  and  by  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  with  amendments  in 
June  2022157.  Some  amendments  raised  concerns,  notably  from  the  European  Chief 
Prosecutor158,  and  the  government  expressed  its  intention  to  adjust  the  draft  law,  as  the 
legislative process is still ongoing. Romania’s RRP provided for the adoption and entry into 
force of the law transposing the directive on whistleblowers’ protection by 31 March 2022159. 

The transparency of political party financing and the enforcement of related rules are 
limited.  Political  parties  receive  public  funding  on  the  basis  of  the  number  of  seats  in  the 
Parliament and the State compensates all campaigning costs of any party receiving more than 
3% of the votes. Since the law states that these public funds should consist of at least 0.01% 
of the gross domestic product, they have increased exponentially160. The Permanent Electoral 
Authority  (PEA)  publishes  on  its  website  information  related  to  electoral  campaigns,  party 
funding, monthly subsidy reports, and the results of oversight. However, the data collected is 
limited because, contrary to good practice161, political parties only need to list categories of 
expenses. Moreover, the PEA can only publish information that was actually provided by the 
political  parties  and  the  rules  are  not  systematically  enforced.  Although  private  donations 
only  make  up  for  a  small  part  of  the  parties’  finances,  a  non-profit  organisation  identified 
people who earn ten times less each year than they donated to a party162. The PEA’s review is 
limited to verifying whether the declared expenditures match the donations and no thorough 
auditing and investigation of expenditures is undertaken, as would be advisable. Furthermore, 
the  PEA  can  impose  monetary  sanctions  for  non-compliance  with  the  legal  provisions,  but 
these are disproportionally low163.  

155  Council  of  Europe  Recommendation  CM/Rec(2017)2  on  the  legal  regulation  of  lobbying  activities  in  the 

context of public decision making.  

156 GRECO Fourth Evaluation Round - Evaluation Report, p. 16-17; GRECO Fourth Evaluation Round - Interim 
Compliance Report, p. 6-7; GRECO Fourth Evaluation Round - Second Interim Compliance Report, p. 3. 

157 Draft Law 219/2022 on the protection of whistleblowers in the public interest. 
158  Statement  from  European  Chief  Prosecutor  Laura  Kövesi  regarding  the  protection  of  whistleblowers  in 

Romania, published on 30 June 2022. 

159  Milestone 430 states: ‘Entry into force of the law on the whistle-blowers’ protection. The law shall transpose 
Directive (EU) 2019/1937 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law, and shall include 
additional provisions, specific to the national context, in order to efficiently address integrity policy issues.’ 
160  In 2017 the total amounted to approximately EUR 6.6 million. When the law changed in 2018, it amounted 

to approximately EUR 33 million and in 2021 EUR 47 million. 

161  OSCE, Election Assessment Mission Final Report, Presidential Election 2019 Romania, p. 13. 
162  Expertforum, Political financing in 2020: transparency and irregularities report.  
163  OSCE, Election Assessment Mission Final Report, Presidential Election 2019 Romania, p. 14.  Monetary 

fines range from RON 10 000 (EUR 2 094) to RON 25 000 (EUR 5 237) in cases, among others, of failure 
to submit the campaign expenditure report after the  election. From  RON 15 000 (EUR 3 142) to RON 50 
000 (EUR 10 474) in cases, among others, of misuse of state subsidies and if the contributions exceed the 
limits set forth in the law; from RON 100 000 (EUR 20 949) to RON 200 000 (EUR 41 896) in cases, among 

20 

 
 
                                                 
 
Corruption  risks  related  to  the  pandemic  received  more  attention.  As  referred  in  the 
2021 Rule of Law report164, the Ministry of Justice noted that progress achieved in the fight 
against  corruption  has  been  uneven,  in  particular  in  vulnerable  areas.  In  response,  the  new 
Anti-Corruption  Strategy  2021-2025  contains  measures  addressing  high-risk  areas,  such  as 
health165  and  public  procurement166.  These  risk  factors  were  evident  during  the  pandemic. 
Since March 2020, the DNA registered 175 cases related to the pandemic and at the end of 
2021,  there  were  89  criminal  cases  relating  to  that  matter167.  Most  cases  involve  protective 
medical  equipment  and  irregularities  with  certificates168.  The  number  of  integrity  warnings 
issued  by  the  electronic  system  to  prevent  conflicts  of  interests  in  public  procurement  has 
decreased since its launch. With the launch of the ‘PREVENT’ system in 2018, there were 69 
integrity warnings,  followed by 40 in  2019, 20 in 2020 and of the 26 integrity  warnings in 
2021, 16 concerned the same procurement procedure169.  

III.  MEDIA PLURALISM AND MEDIA FREEDOM 

The right to freedom of expression as well as the right of access to any information of public 
interest is enshrined in the Constitution. The mission and composition of the media regulator 
are  set  out  in  the  Audiovisual  Law170.  The  organisation  and  functioning  of  the  Romanian 
Broadcasting Society and the Romanian Television Society are regulated by Law 41/1994171.  

Concerns about the functioning and budget of the National Audiovisual Council (CNA) 
persist. Romania has not yet transposed the Audiovisual Media Services Directive as revised 
by Directive (EU) 2018/1808 (AVMSD), and this has delayed important  changes necessary 
to  improve  the  functioning  and  effectiveness  of  the  media  regulator.  One  year  after  the 
election of the members of the CNA, the regulatory authority does not have a President yet. 
In this context, the powers of the President were taken over by the Vice-President. The draft 
law172 transposing the AVMSD requires that the activity of the Council is financed from the 
state budget to perform its functions effectively. The new provisions would extend the scope 
of the law to providers of video sharing platforms under Romanian jurisdiction, jurisdiction 
of other EU Member States or of third States whose content can be accessed in Romania. The 
draft  law  was  approved  by  the  Senate  on  7  June  2022.  The  absence  of  a  President  did  not 

others,  of  violation  of  provision  related  to  the  use  of  the  donation  money  earmarked  for  headquarters  of 
political parties. 

164  2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Romania, p. 12. 
165 One measure (no. 8) is ‘Reviewing and optimising the assessment of corruption risks and conflicts of interest 
in  health  authorities  and  institutions  and  whistleblower  protection  (as  per  Directive  2019/1937  on  the 
protection of persons who report breaches of Union law) in order to detect, prevent, reduce or eliminate risks 
to public health’. 

166  One measure (no. 2) is ‘The development of a national risk map aimed at identifying procurement functions 
that are vulnerable to corruption, areas where public procurement is more prone to corruption and the stages 
of procurement procedures where signs of corruption occur’. 

167  National Anti-corruption Directorate (DNA), 2021 Activity Report, p. 17. 
168  Information  received  from  the  Secretariat  of  the  National  Anti-Corruption  Strategy  in  the  context  of  the 

country visit. 

169 Information received from  ANI in the context of the country visit to Romania.  ANI considers that there  is 

room for technical development and updates of the system after five years. 

170  Law No. 504/2002. 
171  Romania ranks 56th in the 2022 Reporters without Borders World Press Freedom Index compared to 48th in 

the previous year. 

172  PL-x nr. 430/2021 - Draft Law for the amendment and completion of the Audiovisual Law no. 504/2002, as 
well as for the amendment and completion of the Government Ordinance no. 39/2005 on cinematography. 

21 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                        
block the functioning of the CNA, but its budgetary restrictions remain a concern, notably in 
view of the funds required to improve its IT systems173. 

Transparency of media ownership continues to be incomplete174. In accordance with the 
law, the CNA must ensure the transparency of the organisation, functioning and financing of 
the  mass  media  in  the  audiovisual  sector.  Information  on  audiovisual  media  ownership  is 
available  in  the  company  registry  and  some  of  these  data  is  also  published  on  the  annual 
activity report175, although this information is not always complete176. Media companies not 
operating  in  the  audiovisual  field  are  only  subject  to  the  (less  extensive)  requirements  any 
other  company  in  Romania  must  abide  by177.  They  have  to  communicate  information  on 
ownership  structures,  including  shareholders,  to  the  National  Trade  Register  Office. 
However, it is still possible for a media company to be owned by another company, owned in 
turn by an entity registered abroad. Moreover, information about the ownership structure of 
media  companies  is  not  publicly  accessible  without  prior  registration  process  (with  the 
National Trade Register Office or a private company) and the payment of a fee178. 

There  is  not  enough  transparency  with  regard  to  audiovisual  media  and  elections. 
Although  political  competitors  have  guaranteed  and  equitable  access  to  airtime  on 
audiovisual  media  during  electoral  campaigns,  television  channels  are  not  compelled  to 
clearly explain the distinction between different types of content produced during campaigns 
-  especially  between  their  own  editorial  content  and  airtime  bought  by  the  parties  -  and  to 
signal  who  is  paying  for  the  content.  Furthermore,  there  is  not  enough  transparency  about 
how  much  various  parties  paid  to  which  channels  and  for  what  content179.  Attempts  by 
journalists  to  investigate  how  these  funds  were  used  by  the  media  to  broadcast  political 
content  faced  resistance  by  some  political  parties.  The  CNA  is  competent  to  monitor  the 
content that is broadcasted.  

A  bill  to  reform  the  law  on  the  public  broadcasting  and  radio  companies180  is  being 
discussed by the legislator with a view to have a more independent and professionalised 
management.  The  mechanism  for  appointing  and  especially  for  dismissing  the  Board  of 
Directors of the public service broadcaster is considered politicised, since the Parliament only 
needs  to  reject  its  activity  report  for  the  previous  year  to  dismiss  the  Board  and  the  Chairs 
with no discussion on performance targets. The Annual Reports for 2017 through 2019 were 
rejected  in  May  2021,  triggering  the  dismissals  of  the  boards  of  the  radio  and  broadcaster 
company181. In 2021, the position of Chair of the Board of Directors was split into two, one 
for the radio (SRR) and another one for the television companies (SRTv), although arguably 
this  solution  does  not  address  the  actual  problem,  which  is  that  the  institutional  design  of 
public service media does not  incentivize independence  and does not  consider performance 

173  Information received from CNA in the context of the country visit to Romania.  
174  2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Romania, pp. 16 and 17. 
175  For operators in the audio-visual field, ownership information has to be reported to the CNA. The CNA also 
has to be informed about stockholders with 10% or more of the company’s shares and / or with voting rights, 
and information must be public regarding holders of more than 20% of stocks. 

176  Information received from the CNA in the context of the country visit. 
177  Pursuant to the Law on Societies (Law No. 31/1990). 
178  2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Romania, p. 17. 
179 2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Romania, p. 19. 
180  Law No. 41, of 17 June 1994, on the organization and functioning of the Romanian Broadcasting Company 

and the Romanian Television Company. 

181  2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Romania, p. 20. 

22 

 
                                                 
targets182.  The  Board  of  Directors  of  SRR  and  SRTv,  tasked  with  the  administration  of  the 
companies,  were  appointed  on  15  November  2021  by  the  Parliament  for  a  period  of  four 
years, following a number of interim appointments that the Constitutional Court considered 
unconstitutional183. The Steering Committees of SRR and SRTv, tasked with the content and 
editorial  policy  and  the  management  of  operations,  are  also  chaired  by  the  respective 
Presidents of the Board of Directors.  

Concerns remain184 regarding the implementation of the legal framework for access to 
information. A bill intended to update the freedom of information act (Law 544/2001) failed 
to  be  approved  in  2021  and  remains  pending  in  the  Chamber  of  Deputies.  If  approved,  the 
law  would,  among  other  things,  oblige  public  institutions  to  provide  public  interest 
information in an open (machine readable) format, create a publicly accessible register of the 
requests for information received and clarify what institutions and organisations are obliged 
to answer requests. Insufficient and inconsistent responsiveness of authorities to freedom of 
information requests represent an ongoing problem185, including on urgent decisions taken on 
e.g. the COVID-19 pandemic or the Ukrainian refugees crisis186. Data protection laws or the 
transfer of information requests to different institutions are often invoked to refuse to release 
public interest information187. 

The  situation  regarding  threats,  instances  of  harassment  and  violence  against 
journalists  is  more  concerning  compared  to  last  year188.  In  September  2021,  two 
journalists  and  an  environmental  activist  were  attacked  while  filming  a  documentary  about 
illegal deforestation189. All their footage was deleted and the equipment was destroyed by the 
attackers.  While  the  then  Prime  Minister  condemned  this  attack  and  an  investigation  was 
launched,  a  public  petition  requesting  the  General  Prosecutor  to  take  over  the  investigation 
was not accepted190. In September 2021, two women journalists were attacked at a congress 
of  the  National  Liberal  Party  by  party  members191.  The  Council  of  Europe  has  two  active 
alerts  concerning  intimidation  of  journalists  in  Romania192.  One  of  these  cases  led  ten 

182 2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Romania, pp. 11 and 20. 
183 2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Romania, footnote 29. 
184  2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Romania, p. 14. 
185  2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Romania, p. 14. 
186  Information received from Funky Citizens in the context of the country visit to Romania. 
187  2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Romania, p. 14. 
188  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report,  Country  Chapter  on  the  rule  of  law  situation  in  Romania,  p.  19,  referred  to 
lawsuits  for  defamation  against  investigative  journalists  but  did  not  report  any  physical  attack  against 
journalists. 

189  Council of Europe, Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists, Romania.  
190  Written contribution from Declic, 6 December 2021. 
191  Information  received  from  Active  Watch  in  the  context  of  the  country  visit  to  Romania.  See  also  joint 
statement  of  several  associations  of  28  September  2021,  ‘We  ask  the  PNL  leadership  to  take  measures  to 
protect the integrity of the press’.  

192  Council  of  Europe  Platform  for  the  protection  of  journalism  and  safety  of  journalists,  Romania.  On  13 
January 2022, the Direction of Investigation of Organised Crime and Terrorism Crimes (DIICOT) raided the 
home  of  Alin  Cristea,  Editor-in-Chief  of  the  online  news  outlet  debrăila.ro  and  confiscated  journalistic 
equipment allegedly over suspicions of child pornography. The Romanian authorities reacted to this alert on 
25 March informing that prosecutors acted in the child’s best interest and that all actions and measures taken 
by the judiciary had followed a proportionate approach considering the crime committed and the respect for 
media freedom and for the rights of the journalists. The second alert concerns journalist Emilia Sercan, who 
on  4  April  2022  announced  that  she  had  been  the  victim  of  harassment,  intimidation  and  threats  over  the 
course  of three  months  since  19 January 2022.  Following the  publication of an investigation  in  which  she 
described that the then Romanian Prime Minister had plagiarised his doctoral thesis, she received threatening 
messages and was subject to a smear campaign. The Romanian authorities reacted to this alert on  22 June, 

23 

 
                                                 
 
European and international press freedom and freedom of expression organisations to send an 
open  letter  to  the  Romanian  authorities  calling  for  swift  and  independent  investigations, 
recalling a background of undue pressure against journalists and media workers in Romania 
coming from politicians, prosecutors, police, and military officers193. No specific safeguards 
or  cooperation  mechanisms  between  different  stakeholders  exist  to  protect  journalists  from 
this  type  of  attacks.  On  15  June  2021,  the  Bucharest  Court  rejected  the  strategic  lawsuit 
against public participation referred to in the last Report194. 

IV.  OTHER INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES RELATED TO CHECKS AND BALANCES 

Romania is a semi-presidential representative democratic republic. The Romanian Parliament 
is  bicameral,  comprising  the  Senate  (the  upper  house),  and  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  (the 
lower  house).  The  Government,  Deputies,  Senators,  or  a  group  of  no  less  than  100.000 
citizens  have  the  right  of  legislative  initiative195.  The  Constitutional  Court  is  competent  to 
review  the  constitutionality  of  laws  and  to  settle  conflicts  of  constitutional  nature  between 
public authorities196. 

Frequent changes of legislation and the regular use of emergency ordinances continue to 
raise concerns regarding the stability and predictability of legislation. As referred in the 
2020  and  2021  Rule  of  Law  Reports197,  whereas  the  ordinary  process  for  preparing  and 
enacting  laws  is  well  regulated,  there  are  concerns  regarding  the  frequent  amendments  to 
legislation198,  and  the  extensive  use  of  fast-track  procedures  and  government  emergency 
ordinances (GEOs). Data show that in 2021 the number of new GEOs decreased in terms of 
the percentage of the total legislation adopted199. However, the Legislative Council continues 
to highlight that not all draft emergency ordinances presented substantiated reasons to justify 
an extraordinary situation, the regulation of which could not be postponed200. Moreover, there 

condemning all attempts to intimidate or influence the work of Romanian journalists and media outlets and 
informing that the case is currently under investigation. In a separate case, on 13 December 2021, a media 
crew  of  the  Italian  public  broadcaster  RAI  were  detained  in  a  Bucharest  police  station  after  a  Romanian 
Senator kept them locked up inside her office during an interview. The journalists  were released following 
the intervention of the Italian embassy. The Romanian Government issued statements, strongly condemning 
‘any act of intimidation of journalists or obstruction of the right to free information of citizens and asking for 
the matters to be duly investigated’. 

193  Media  Freedom  Rapid  Response  (MFRR)  (2022),  ‘Open  letter  calling  for  swift  and  independent 
investigation  concerning  publication  of  stolen  pictures  of  Emilia  Șercan  and  leak  from  criminal 
investigation’.  

194  Investigative  journalists  were  sued  for  over  EUR  488 000  in  relation  to  an  article  on  sale  of  masks 

considered faulty. 

195  Constitution of Romania, Art. 74. The citizens who exercise their right to a legislative initiative must belong 
to  at  least  one  quarter  of  the  country's  counties,  while,  in  each  of  those  counties  or  the  Municipality  of 
Bucharest, at least 5 000 signatures should be registered in support of such initiative. 

196  Constitution of Romania, Art. 146. A partial renewal of CCR members will take place this year, with two 
judges already proposed by the political parties and endorsed by the Parliament. The selection procedure was 
challenged at the Constitutional Court. 

197  2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Romania, p. 15; 2021 Rule of Law 

Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Romania, p. 20. 

198  The  quality  of  law-making  is  an  important  factor  for  investor  confidence  and  a  reason  for  concern  about 
effectiveness  of  investment  protection  for  32.1%  of  companies  in  Romania  as  shown  in  Figure  55  of  the 
2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. 

199  In 2021, GEOs represented 8.6% of the total of legislation adopted, and 13.77% in 2020. In 2021, out of a 
total of 1685 draft normative acts adopted by the Government, 145 were GEOs (Input from Romania for the 
2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 34).  

200  Input from Romania for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 34. 

24 

 
                                                                                                                                                        
is no strict deadline for completing the adoption procedure of emergency ordinances by the 
Parliament201. This procedure also does not envisage the obligation to submit the draft to the 
Legislative Council for its opinion202. In addition, such ordinances may not be submitted to a 
preliminary  control  of  constitutionality203  nor  challenged  before  the  Constitutional  Court 
except by a limited number of institutional actors204. According to an independent study, of 
474 legislative initiatives analysed, 140 (30%) were aimed at approving such ordinances205, 
and 174 of the 474 legislative acts (37%) went through a fast-track procedure206. Situations of 
frequent  successive  changes  of  normative  acts  also  continue  to  occur207.  These  issues  are 
addressed in Romania’s RRP, which provides for the establishment of a specialised structure 
with  the  role  of  overseeing  the  quality  of  legislation  and  the  compulsory  republication  of 
consolidated versions of laws whenever they are amended208. The RRP moreover envisages 
the adoption of a methodology for the use of GEOs209. 

Efforts are under way to improve the use of impact assessments but concerns regarding 
the  effectiveness  of  public  consultations  remain.  The  Secretariat  General  of  the 
Government  conducted an analysis of the quality of the rationale for legislation adopted by 
the  Government  in  2020,  which  shows  an  increase  of  14-percentage  point  of  satisfactory 
impact  assessments  and  a  21-percentage  point  decrease  of  the  unsatisfactory  impact 
assessment  compared  to  2019210.  A  new  legislative  proposal  to  ensure  that  the  grounds  for 
regulatory  acts  must  be  based  on  an  assessment  of  the  impact  on  public  health  is  pending 
before  the  Senate211.  The  Romanian  RRP  includes  measures  aimed  at  strengthening  the 
capacity of ministries to develop impact assessments212. To that end, on 30 March 2022, the 
Government  adopted  a  decision  defining  the  methodology  for  ex  ante  and  ex  post  impact 
assessment  of  draft  normative  acts  and  setting  up  of  the  Advisory  Board  for  the  Impact 
Assessment of Regulatory Acts213. Regarding public consultations, it is reported that, despite 

201  Out of the 145 emergency ordinances adopted in 2021, only 40 have been made law by Parliament so far, 
and 104 have not been debated in Parliament yet. Information received from the Legislative Council in the 
context of the country visit to Romania. 

202  Input from Romania for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 34. 
203  The absence of ex ante control of constitutionality of the GEOs is additionally problematic since GEOs come 
into  force  immediately,  may  create  rights  and  obligations,  impose  sanctions  or  exonerate  from  liability 
(Venice Commission, (CDL-AD(2019)014), para 17). 

204  Article 146 (a) of the Romanian Constitution. 
205  In particular, regarding draft legislation in the field of finance, 25 of the 51 draft laws concern the approval 

of a GEO (contribution from Funky Citizens for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 24). 

206  Contribution from Funky Citizens for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 24. 
207  For  instance,  in  2021,  the  National  Education  Law  (Law  No.  1/2011)  was  subject  to  14  legislative 
interventions,  seven  of  which  through  GEO,  and  the  Fiscal  Code  (Law  No.  227/2015),  was  amended  11 
times, four of which by emergency ordinance (Input from Romania for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 33). 
208  Under  Milestone  404,  Romania  committed  to  establish  and  operationalise  ‘a  structure  to  ensure  the 
implementation of an effective regulatory quality control mechanism’ by 31 March 2022. . Under milestone 
412,  Romania  committed  to  amend  Law  24/2000  by  30  September  2022  to  require  the  republication  of 
consolidated version of laws whenever they are amended. 

209  Milestone 411, to be achieved by 30 September 2022.  
210  Input from Romania for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 33. 
211  Committee on Legal Affairs, Appointments, Discipline, Immunities and Validations. The draft law aims to 

complete Law No. 24/2000, on legislative technique. 

212  Milestone 401, ‘Entry into force of the methodologies and procedures to improve public policy rationale and 

planning and administrative simplification’.  

213  Decision  no.  443  of  30  March  2022  approving  the  content  of  the  presentation  and  motivation  tool,  the 
structure  of  the  report  on  the  implementation  of  normative  acts,  the  methodological  instructions  for 
conducting  the  impact  assessment,  and  setting  up  the  Advisory  Board  for  the  impact  assessment  of 
normative acts. 

25 

 
                                                 
the  legal  obligation  thereto214,  public  authorities  do  not  submit  written  reasoning  for  not 
considering  the  proposals  submitted  by  the  civil  society  during  the  legislative  procedure215. 
Moreover, a new GEO came into force in March 2022216, which allows the derogation from 
the minimum 30-day public consultation period for normative acts in case of emergency. The 
Ombudsperson  challenged  this  GEO  before  the  Constitutional  Court217  on  the  grounds  that 
the  emergency  situations  allowing  derogation  from  the  30-day  period  should  be  more 
precisely defined.  

The Romanian Government has made a clear commitment to the principle of primacy 
of  EU  law,  but  concerns  remain  regarding  the  challenge  to  this  principle  by  the 
Constitutional  Court.  As  referred  in  the  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report218,  in  a  judgment  of  8 
June 2021219, the Constitutional Court rejected the findings of the European Court of Justice 
in  its  preliminary  ruling  of  18  May  2021220  and  questioned  the  principle  of  primacy  of  EU 
law.  The  Commission  expressed  serious  concerns  that  this  judgment  of  the  Constitutional 
Court  goes  against  the  principle  of  primacy  of  EU  law221.  The  Romanian  government 
highlighted its commitment of ensuring, in line with its constitutional powers, respect for the 
primacy  of  EU  law222.  Following  this  judgment,  in  the  context  of  new  requests  for  a 
preliminary ruling submitted by Romanian courts, the Court of Justice declared that, by virtue 
of the primacy of EU law, national courts should not be prevented by a risk of disciplinary 
sanctions from  disapplying decisions of the Constitutional  Court, which are contrary to  EU 
law223.  Subsequently,  on  23  December  2021,  the  Constitutional  Court  issued  a  public 
statement recalling the binding nature of its decisions and declared that the Court of Justice’s 
judgment could not be implemented without amending the Romanian Constitution224. In light 
of  the  case-law  of  the  Constitutional  Court,  and  in  particular  due  to  the  fact  that  non-

214  Article 12(3), Law No 52/2003. 
215  Contribution from Civil Liberties Union for Europe - Romania for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 13. 
216  Government emergency ordinance No. 16/2022, of 2 March. 
217  Exception of unconstitutionality lodged on 24 March 2022 and registered under case No. 2688. 
218  2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Romania, pp. 22 and 23. 
219  Decision No. 390 of the Constitutional Court of 8 June 2021 concerning the exception of unconstitutionality 
of  provisions  of  articles  881-889  of  Law  no.  304/2004  on  judicial  organisation  and  of  Government 
Emergency  Ordinance  no.  90/2018  concerning  certain  measures  for  the  operation  of  the  Section  for  the 
Investigation of Offences in the Judiciary. 

220  Judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  18  May  2021,  Asociaţia  ‘Forumul  Judecătorilor  Din  România’  and 

Others, in joined cases C-83/19, C-127/19, C-195/19, C-294/19, C-355/19 and C-379/19 , para. 219. 

221  Letter of 18 October 2021 to the Romanian authorities. 
222  Letters of 12 November 2021 and 15 January 2022 to the Commission. 
223  Judgment of the Court of Justice of 21 December 2021, Euro Box Promotion e.a., in joined cases C-357/19, 

C-379/19, C-547/19, C-811/19 and C-840/19. 

224  Constitutional Court, Press release of 23 December 2021.  As recalled by the Court of Justice, by virtue of 
the  principle  of  the  primacy  of  EU  law,  a  Member  State’s  reliance  on  rules  of  national  law,  even  of  a 
constitutional order, cannot be allowed to undermine the unity  and effectiveness of EU law. The effects of 
the principle of the primacy of EU law are binding on all the bodies of a Member State, without, inter alia, 
provisions  of  domestic  law  relating  to  the  attribution  of  jurisdiction,  including  constitutional  provisions, 
being  able  to  prevent  that.  (Judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  18  May  2021,  Asociaţia  ‘Forumul 
Judecătorilor Din România’ and Others, in joined cases C-83/19, C-127/19, C-195/19, C-294/19, C-355/19 
and C-379/19, para. 245 and case-law cited). It is also in the light of the primacy principle that, where it is 
unable to interpret national law in compliance with the requirements of EU law, the national court which is 
called upon within the exercise of its jurisdiction to apply provisions of EU law is under a duty to give full 
effect  to  those  provisions,  if  necessary  refusing  of  its  own  motion  to  apply  any  conflicting  provision  of 
national legislation, even if adopted subsequently, and it is not necessary for that court to request or await the 
prior setting aside of such provision by legislative or other constitutional means (Ibid., para. 247 and case-
law cited). 

26 

 
                                                 
compliance with  the decisions of the Constitutional  Court constitutes a disciplinary offence 
under  national  law225,  a  Romanian  court  submitted a  preliminary  reference  to  the  CJEU, in 
which context the Court of Justice ruled that the national courts must be able to examine the 
conformity  of  national  provisions  with  EU  law,  regardless  of  whether  they  have  been  held 
constitutional by a decision of the national Constitutional Court226. The Court also made clear 
that  EU  law  precludes  any  national  rule  or  practice  that  would  give  rise  to  disciplinary 
liability for national judges’ failure to comply with decisions of the Constitutional Court that 
are  contrary  to  EU  law227.  Steps  were  taken  to  address  these  concerns  by  proposing,  in  the 
context  of  the  legislative  procedure  for  the  preparation  of  the  new  justice  laws,  that  the 
disciplinary offence of disregarding a judgment of the Constitutional Court is suppressed228. 
Moreover,  the  HCCJ  gave  several  judgments229  setting  aside  the  case-law  of  the 
Constitutional Court on the composition of judges’ panels to give effect  to the judgment of 
the CJEU of 21 December 2021230, thus giving precedence to the principle of primacy of EU 
law. 

The state of alert declared in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic was lifted, while 
the emergency measures adopted have been subject to scrutiny. The state of alert231 was 
extended,  each  time  for  30  days,  by  successive  Government  decisions  and  was  lifted  on  9 
March 2022232. Some of the emergency measures adopted in this context have been subject to 
judicial  review.  In  particular,  in  line  with  the  legal  provisions  on  the judicial  review  of  the 
administrative acts issued based on the law establishing public health measures in situations 
of epidemiological and biological risk233, the Administrative and Fiscal Contentious Chamber 
of the High Court of Cassation and Justice solved, as last instance, 21 cases concerning such 
administrative  acts234.  By  decision  of  20  October  2021,  the  Constitutional  Court  upheld  a 
referral  of  unconstitutionality  brought  by  50  parliamentarians  and  declared  that  the 
Parliament’s decision approving the state of alert235 and the related measures introduced by 
the  Government236  to  prevent  and  combat  the  effects  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic  were 
unconstitutional237.  Moreover,  the  Constitutional  Court  found  that  the  state  of  alert  can  be 

225  Art. 99(ş), Law No. 303/2004.  
226  Judgment of the Court of Justice of 22 February 2022, RS, in case C-430/21, para. 78. 
227  Judgment of the Court of Justice of 22 February 2022, RS, in case C-430/21, para. 87, and case-law cited. 
228  A draft Law (Pl-x nr. 89/2022) proposing the suppression of Art. 99 ş) of the Law on the status of judges and 
prosecutors was tabled in Parliament on 8 March 2022. However, on 25 May 2022, the Chamber of Deputies 
rejected the draft law after it  received a negative opinion from its  Committee on  Legal Affairs, Discipline 
and Immunities. On 2 June 2022, the plenary of the SCM also issued a negative opinion on the same  draft 
law. 

229  In  its  judgments  of  7  April  2022  in  case  3089/1/2018  and  10  May  2022  in  case  105/1/2019,  the  HCCJ 
considered  that  reopening  the  trials  in  accordance  with  the  case-law  of  the  Constitutional  Court  on  the 
legality of the composition of judges’ panels would create a systemic risk of impunity for serious crimes of 
fraud affecting the financial interests of the Union or corruption in general.  

230  Judgment of the Court of Justice of 21 December 2021, Euro Box Promotion e.a., in joined cases C-357/19, 

C-379/19, C-547/19, C-811/19 and C-840/19. 

231  The state of alerted followed the state of emergency, which was lifted in May 2020. See 2021 Rule of Law 

Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Romania, pp. 21 and 22. 

232  The  state  of  alert  was  extended  for  30  days  from  9  December  by  Government  Decision  No.1242  of  8 
December  2021,  from  8  January  by  Government  Decision  No.  34  of  6  January  2022  and,  lastly,  from  7 
February 2022 by Government Decision No. 171 of 3 February 2022. 

233  Art. 15, Law No. 136/2020. 
234  Input from Romania for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 35. 
235  Decision No 5/2020. 
236  Decision No 394/2020 on the declaration of the state of alert. 
237  Input from Romania for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 36. 

27 

 
                                                 
declared for a limited period of time, which may not exceed 30 days, and may be extended 
for a maximum of 30 days, based on an analysis of the risk factors238. 

On  1  January  2022,  Romania  had  106  leading  judgments  of  the  European  Court  of 
Human  Rights  pending  implementation239.  At  that  time,  Romania’s  rate  of  leading 
judgments from  the past ten  years that remained pending was at  57% and the average time 
that the judgments had been pending implementation was over four years and two months240. 
The  oldest  leading  judgment,  pending  implementation  for  17  years,  concerns  the  right  to 
protection of property due expropriations and nationalisations241. On 1 July 2022, the number 
of leading judgments pending implementation has increased to 109242. 

The  Romanian  Institute  for  Human  Rights  is  taking  steps  to  obtain  accreditation  as 
National Human Rights Institution. While both the Institute for Human Rights (RIHR) and 
the  Ombudsperson  applied  for  accreditation  before  the  Global  Alliance  of  National  Human 
Rights  Institutions  (GANHRI)  Sub-Committee  on  Accreditation  in  2020243,  Romania 
currently does not have an institution accredited as a National Human Rights Institution244. In 
2021, the Senate rejected a legislative proposal on the merger of the RIHR into the National 
Council  for  Combating  Discrimination245.  Following  this  rejection,  the  procedure  for 
appointing the members of RIHR’s General Council was resumed246. RIHR has also carried 
discussions  with  representatives  of  Senate  committees  regarding  the  amendment  of  its 
legislative framework and the need to strengthen its body of experts and ensure the necessary 
resources  to  carry  out  its  tasks.  RIHR  received  the  support  of  the  Senate’s  Committee  on 
Human  Rights  to  draft  a  new  legislative  proposal  to  reform  RIHR,  strengthening  its 
institutional capacity in  accordance with the recommendations made by the Sub-Committee 
of Accreditation (GANHRI) to comply with the Paris Principles247. 

238  Decision No 416 of 10 June 2021, published in Official Gazette No 814 of 25 August 2021. 
239  The adoption of necessary execution  measures  for a  judgment by the European  Court of Human  Rights is 
supervised by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. It is the Committee’s practice to group 
cases against a State requiring similar execution measures, particularly general measures, and examine them 
jointly. The first case in the group is designated as the leading case as regards the supervision of the general 
measures and repetitive cases within the group can be closed when it is assessed that all possible individual 
measures needed to provide redress to the applicant have been taken. 

240  All figures are calculated by the European Implementation Network and are based on the number of cases 
that  are  considered  pending  at  the  annual  cut-off  date  of  1  January  2022.  See  the  contribution  from  the 
European Implementation Network for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 66. 

241  Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 21 July 2005, Strain and Others v. Romania, 57001/00, 

pending implementation since 2005. 

242 Data according to the online database of the Council of Europe (HUDOC). 
243  2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Romania, p. 17. 
244  The  Romanian  Institute  for  Human  Rights  (RIHR)  is  a  non-accredited  associate  member  of  the  European 
Network  on  National  Human  Rights  Institutions  (contribution  from  the  European  Network  on  National 
Human Rights Institutions (ENNHRI) for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 438). 

245  Contribution  from  the  European  Network  on  National  Human  Rights  Institutions  (ENNHRI)  for  the  2022 
Rule of Law Report, p. 438. See also 2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation 
in Romania, p. 23. 

246  The General Council consists of representatives of parliamentary parties, civil society and academia. 
247  Contribution  from  the  European  Network  on  National  Human  Rights  Institutions  (ENNHRI)  for  the  2022 
Rule  of  Law  Report,  p.  437.  The  Paris  principles  require  NHRIs  to  be  independent  in  law,  membership, 
operations,  policy  and  control  of  resources;  to  have  a  broad  mandate;  pluralism  in  membership;  broad 
functions; adequate powers; adequate resources; cooperative methods; and engage with international bodies 

28 

 
                                                 
Civil  society  is  facing  both  legal  and  practical  challenges.  The  civil  society  space 
continued to  be assessed as  narrowed248. Whereas,  following a  campaign led by a  group of 
human  rights  and  civil  society  organisations  (CSOs),  steps  were  taken  to  modernise  and 
improve the legislative framework regulating the right to freedom of peaceful assembly, the 
Parliament did not complete the procedures to adopt the new legislation249. The bill remains 
pending in Parliament250. There are concerns as regards the impact that the measures adopted 
in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic had on the freedom of assembly251. In particular, 
during  2021,  marches,  protests  and  political  gatherings  were  limited  to  50  persons  indoors 
and  100  persons  outdoors,  under  the  condition  that  all  participants  wear  face  masks  and 
observe  social  distancing  measures252,  while  the  restrictions  for  other  types  of  public 
gatherings  were  gradually  relaxed253.  CSOs  criticised  these  measures,  considering  them 
disproportionate254.  Instances  of  smear  attacks  against  civil  society  have  also  been 
reported255.  CSOs  also  experienced  difficulties  in  participating  in  the  consultation  process 
during  the  legislative  procedure256.  In  addition,  CSOs  expressed  concerns  regarding 
difficulties in access to funding, which constraints their activity257. No additional support has 
been provided to CSOs in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic258. 

There are plans to simplify registration procedures for non-governmental organisations. 
There have been improvements regarding the strict procedural requirements imposed on non-
governmental organisations (NGOs)259. The General Secretariat of the Government publishes 
and  permanently  updates  the  register  of  associations  and  foundations,  and  manages  the 
catalogue of NGOs260. The Government has also initiated a reform of the legal framework for 
NGOs, with the purpose of simplifying registration procedures. However, concerns have been 
raised that while the envisaged transfer of the NGO Registry from courts to the Commercial 
Registry  would  simplify  procedures  for  registration  and  amendments,  it  may  lower  the 
guarantees of independence that are ensured by courts261.  

248  Rating by CIVICUS; ratings are on a five-category scale defined as: open, narrowed, obstructed, repressed 

and closed. 

249  Legislative  proposal  for  the  amendment  and  completion  of  the  Law  on  the  organisation  and  conduct  of 

public assemblies. 

250  Franet (2022), Country research - Legal environment and space of civil society organisations in supporting 

fundamental rights – Romania. p. 3. 

251  Contribution  from  the  European  Network  on  National  Human  Rights  Institutions  (ENNHRI)  for  the  2022 
Rule of Law Report, p. 440; contribution from Civil Society Europe for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 11. 
252  Government Decision on the prolongation of a state of alert starting with 15 August 2020 and the measures 
to be taken during it to prevent and combat the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, 14 September 2020.  
253  Such as cultural, sports, and religious events. Franet (2022), Country research - Legal environment and space 

of civil society organisations in supporting fundamental rights – Romania, p. 4. 

254   Coalition  NGOs  for  Citizens  (2021),  ‘Relaxation  measures  continue  to  ignore  the  conditions  for  the 

organization and conduct of public meetings’. 

255  Contribution from Civil Society Europe for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 6. 
256  NGO Expert Council, The legal space for non-governmental organisations in Europe, p. 32. 
257 Contribution from Funky Citizens for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 9. 
258  NGO Expert Council, The legal space for non-governmental organisations in Europe, p. 38. 
259  Contribution from Civil Society Europe for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 8. 
260  Input from Romania for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 44. 
261  Contribution from Expert Forum for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 20. 

29 

 
                                                 
Annex I: List of sources in alphabetical order* 

* The list of contributions received in the context of the consultation for the 2022 Rule of Law 
report  can  be 
found  at  https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/2022-rule-law-report-targeted-
stakeholder-consultation_en. 

ActiveWatch,  Centrul  pentru  Inovare  Publică,  CeRe:  Centrul  de  Resurse  pentru  participare  publică, 
Átlátszó Erdély / Transilvania Transparentă, Miliția Spirituală and, PATRIR – Peace Action, Training 
and  Research  Institute  of  Romania  (2021),  Joint  statement  -  ‘We  ask  the  PNL  leadership  to  take 
measures  to  protect  the  integrity  of  the  press’  (‘Solicităm  conducerii  PNL  să  ia  măsuri  pentru 
protejarea integrității presei’) https://www.stareademocratiei.ro/2021/09/28/solicitam-conducerii-pnl-
sa-ia-masuri-pentru-protejarea-integritatii-presei/. 

Active Watch (2022), Contribution from Active Watch for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. 

Adevărul  (2021),  ‘Prosecutors  jump  in  defence  of  judges  sanctioned  by  the  SCM:  “The  final 
conviction  of  notorious  criminals  is  linked  to  the  names  of  those  mentioned”’  (‘Procurorii  sar  în 
apărarea  judecătorilor  sancţionaţi  de  CSM:  „De  numele  celor  menţionaţi  se  leagă  condamnarea 
definitivă  a  unor  infractori  notorii“’)  https://adevarul.ro/locale/constanta/procurorii-sar-apararea-
judecatorilor-sanctionati-csm-de-numele-celor-mentionati-leaga-condamnarea-definitiva-infractori-
notorii-1_61b85ae85163ec42719149a9/index.html.  

Centre  for  Media  Pluralism  and  Media  Freedom  (2022),  Media  pluralism  monitor  2022  –  country 
report on Romania. 

Civicus (2022), Monitor tracking civic space – Romania https://monitor.civicus.org/country/romania/.  

Civil  Liberties  Union  for  Europe  –  Romania  (2022),  Contribution  from  Civil  Liberties  Union  for 
Europe – Romania for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. 

Civil  Society  Europe  (2022),  Contribution  from  Civil  Society  Europe  for  the  2022  Rule  of  Law 
Report. 

Chamber of Deputies (2022), Draft Law 219/2022 on the protection of whistleblowers in the public 
interest http://www.cdep.ro/pls/proiecte/upl_pck2015.proiect?nr=219&an=2022  

Coalition  NGOs  for  Citizens  (2021),  ‘Relaxation  measures  continue  to  ignore  the  conditions  for 
organizing and conducting public gatherings’ (‘Măsurile de relaxare ignoră în continuare condițiile 
de 
publice’) 
https://www.stareademocratiei.ro/2021/06/22/masurile-de-relaxare-ignora-in-continuare-conditiile-de-
organizare-si-desfasurare-a-adunarilor-publice/.  

desfășurare 

organizare 

adunărilor 

și 

a 

Constitutional Court, judgment of 16 January 2019, No. 26/2019. 

Constitutional Court, judgment of 8 June 2021, No. 390/2021. 

Constitutional Court, judgment of 15 February 2022, No. 133/2022, Case No. 180/2022. 

Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (2022), Contribution from the Council of Bars and Law 
Societies of Europe (CCBE) for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. 

Council  of  Europe:  Committee  of  Ministers  (2010),  Recommendation  CM/Rec(2010)12  of  the 
Committee of Ministers to member states on judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities. 

Council  of  Europe:  Committee  of  Ministers  (2017),  Recommendation  CM/Rec(2017)2  and 
explanatory memorandum of the Committee of Ministers on legal regulation of lobbying activities in 
the context of public decision making. 

Council  of  Europe:  Expert  Council  on  NGO  Law  (2021),  The  legal  space  for  non-governmental 
organisations in Europe – Civil society’s perception of the implementation of Council of Europe CM 
Recommendation (2007)14 to Member States on the Legal Status of Non-Governmental Organisations 
in Europe. 

30 

 
Council  of  Europe,  Platform  to  promote  the  protection  of  journalism  and  safety  of  journalists  – 
Romania https://fom.coe.int/en/alerte?years=2022&typeData=1&time=1653914309287.  

Council  of  Europe:  Venice  Commission  (2018),  Romania  –  Opinion  of  the  Venice  Commission  on 
amendments to the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code (CDL-AD(2018)021). 

Council  of  Europe: Venice  Commission  (2019),  Principles  on  the  Protection  and  Promotion  of  the 
Ombudsman Institution (‘The Venice Principles’) (CDL-AD(2019)005). 

Council  of  Europe:  Venice  Commission  (2019),  Romania  –  Opinion  of  the  Venice  Commission  on 
emergency ordinances Geo no. 7 and Geo no. 12 amending the Laws of justice (CDL-AD(2019)014). 

Council of Europe: Venice Commission (2021), Romania - Opinion on the draft Law for dismantling 
the Section for the Investigation of Offences committed within the Judiciary (CDL-AD(2021)019-e). 

Council  of  Europe:  Venice  Commission  (2022),  Romania  -  Opinion  on  the  draft  law  on  the 
dismantling  of  the  section  for  investigating  criminal  offences  within  the  judiciary  (CDL-
AD(2022)003-e). 

Council of Ministers, Resolution No. 143/2021. 

Council  of the  European Union,  Annex  to  the  Proposal for  a  Council Implementing  Decision  of  27 
September 2021 on the approval of the assessment of the recovery and resilience plan for Romania 
(SWD(2021) 276 final). 

Council  of  the  European  Union,  Council  Implementing  Decision  of  27  September  2021  on  the 
approval of the assessment of the recovery and resilience plan for Romania (SWD(2021) 276 final). 

Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 18 May 2021, Asociaţia ‘Forumul Judecătorilor 
Din  România’  and  Others,  joined  cases  C-83/19,  C-127/19,  C-195/19,  C-294/19,  C-355/19  and  C-
379/19, ECLI:EU:C:2022:44. 

Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 21 December 2021,  Euro Box Promotion e.a., 
joined cases C-357/19, C-379/19, C-547/19, C-811/19 and C0840/19, ECLI:EU:C:2021:1034. 

Court  of  Justice  of  the  European  Union,  judgment  of  22  February  2022,  RS,  C-430/21, 
ECLI:EU:C:2022:99. 

Declic (2022), Contribution from Declic for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. 

Department  for  the  Control  of  the  Financing  of  Political  Parties  and  Electoral  Campaigns  (2022), 
2021 
https://finantarepartide.ro/wp-
Report 
content/uploads/2022/04/Raport_DCFPPCE_2021.pdf.  

Annual 

Directive (EU) 2018/1808 amending Directive 2010/13/EU on the coordination of certain provisions 
laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of 
audiovisual  media  services  (Audiovisual  Media  Services  Directive)  in  view  of  changing  market 
realities. 

Directive (EU) 2019/1937 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law. 

Directorate-General  for  Communication  (2019),  Flash  Eurobarometer  482:  businesses’  attitudes 
towards corruption in the EU. 

Directorate-General for Communication (2020), Special Eurobarometer 502: corruption. 

Directorate-General  for  Communication  (2022),  Flash  Eurobarometer  507:  businesses’  attitudes 
towards corruption in the EU. 

Directorate-General for Communication (2022), Special Eurobarometer 523: corruption. 

European  Association  of  Judges  (2022),  Contribution  from  the  European  Association  of  Judges  for 
the 2022 Rule of Law Report. 

European Commission (2020), 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation 
in Romania. 

31 

 
European Commission (2021), 2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation 
in Romania. 

European  Commission  (2021),  Report  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  on  progress  in 
Romania under the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (COM(2021) 370 final). 

European Commission (2021), EU Justice Scoreboard. 

European Commission (2022), EU Justice Scoreboard. 

European  Court  of  Human  Rights,  judgment  of  21  July  2005,  Strain  and  Others  v.  Romania, 
57001/00. 

European  Court  of  Human  Rights,  judgment  of  28  October  2020,  Camelia  Bogdan  v.  Romania, 
36889/18.  

European Implementation Network (2022), Contribution from the European Implementation Network 
for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. 

European Network of Councils for the Judiciary (2022), Contribution from the European Network of 
Councils for the Judiciary (ENCJ) for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. 

European Network of National Human Rights Institutions (ENNHRI) (2022), Contribution from the 
European Network of National Human Rights Institutions for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. 

European  Public  Prosecutor’s  Office  (2022),  Statement  from  European  Chief  Prosecutor  Laura 
Kövesi  regarding  the  protection  of  whistleblowers  in  Romania,  published  on  30  June  2022 
https://www.eppo.europa.eu/en/news/statement-european-chief-prosecutor-laura-kovesi-regarding-
protection-whistleblowers-romania.  

Franet,  Human  European  Consultancy  (2022),  Country  research  -  Legal  environment  and  space  of 
civil  society  organisations  in  supporting  fundamental  rights  –  Romania,  Vienna,  EU  Agency  for 
Fundamental  Rights, 
https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2022/civic-space-2022-update#country-
related. 

Funky Citizens (2022), Contribution from Funky Citizens for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. 

Expert  Forum  (2021),  Policy  brief  -  Political  financing  in  2020:  transparency  and  irregularities 
(Raport  de  monitorizare  -  Finanțarea  partidelor  politice  în  2020:  transparență  și  nereguli) 
https://expertforum.ro/en/political-financing-in-2020-transparency-and-irregularities/.  

Expert Forum (2022), Contribution from Expert Forum for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. 

GRECO (2016), Fourth Evaluation Round – Evaluation Report on Romania on corruption prevention 
in respect of members of parliament, judges and prosecutors. 

GRECO  (2018),  Fourth  Evaluation  Round  –  Compliance  Report  on  Romania  on  corruption 
prevention in respect of members of parliament, judges and prosecutors. 

GRECO (2019), Fourth Evaluation Round – Interim Compliance Report on Romania on corruption 
prevention in respect of members of parliament, judges and prosecutors. 

GRECO  (2021),  Fourth  Evaluation  Round  –  Second  Interim  Compliance  Report  on  Romania  on 
corruption prevention in respect of members of parliament, judges and prosecutors. 

Legislative  Council  (2022),  Contribution  from  the  Legislative  Council  for  the  2022  Rule  of  Law 
Report. 

Media  Freedom  Rapid  Response  (MFRR)  (2022),  Open  letter  calling  for  swift  and  independent 
investigation  concerning  publication  of  stolen  pictures  of  Emilia  Șercan  and  leak  from  criminal 
investigation 
https://www.mfrr.eu/romania-open-letter-calling-for-swift-and-independent-
investigation-concerning-publication-of-stolen-pictures-of-emilia-sercan-and-leak-from-criminal-
investigation/. 

Ministry of Interior, Anti-Corruption Directorate (2022), 2021 Annual report. 

32 

 
Ministry of Justice (2022), Contribution from the Ministry of Justice for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. 

National Agency for the Management of Seized Assets (2022), 2021 Annual report. 

Ombudsperson,  Exception  of  unconstitutionality  against  Government  emergency  ordinance  No. 
16/2022,  lodged  on  24  March  2022  and  registered  under  case  No.  2688  https://avp.ro/wp-
content/uploads/2022/03/Ecx-OUG-16-2022.pdf.  

Permanent Electoral Authority (2020), Press release regarding the development and implementation, 
by the Permanent Electoral Authority, of the IT application for the management of the Fiscal Register 
of  political  parties  https://www.roaep.ro/prezentare/comunicat-de-presa/comunicat-de-presa-privind-
dezvoltarea-si-implementarea-de-catre-autoritatea-electorala-permanenta-a-aplicatiei-informatice-
pentru-gestionarea-registrului-fiscal-al-partidelor-politice/. 

Prosecutor  General  (2022),  Contribution  from  the  Prosecutor  General  for  the  2022  Rule  of  Law 
Report. 

OECD  (2022),  Evaluation  of 
https://search.oecd.org/gov/ethics/evaluation-romanian-national-anti-corruption-strategy-2016-
2020.pdf.  

the  Romanian  National  Anti-corruption  Strategy  2016-2020 

OSCE (2019), ODIHR Election Assessment Mission Final Report on Romania – Presidential Election 
10 and 24 November 2019. 

Reporters without Borders – Romania https://rsf.org/en/country/romania.  

Romanian  Government  (2021),  Strategy  for  the  Development  of  the  Judiciary  2022-2025  and  its 
related Action Plan https://sgg.gov.ro/1/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/ANEXA-50.pdf.  

Romanian Government, National Recovery and Resilience Plan.  

Romanian Government (2022), Input from Romania for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. 

Romanian Judges Forum Association (2022), Movement for the Defence of the Statute of Prosecutors 
statement 
and 
http://www.forumuljudecatorilor.ro/index.php/archives/6499.  

Association 

‘Initiative 

Justice’ 

Joint 

for 

- 

Romanian Judges Forum Association (2022), Press release of 4 May 2022, ‘Magistrates’ Associations 
and  Civil  Society:  We  urge  the  Minister  of  Justice  to  urgently  publish  the  draft  justice  laws  and 
criminal codes and to submit them to the Venice Commission’ (‘Asociațiile de magistrați și societatea 
civilă:  Solicităm  Ministrului  Justiției  să  publice  urgent  proiectele  legilor  justiției  și  ale  codurilor 
penale 
Veneția’) 
http://www.forumuljudecatorilor.ro/index.php/archives/6554. 

înainteze 

Comisiei 

de 

să 

la 

le 

și 

Stiripesurse.ro  (2021),  ‘DNA  and  DIICOT  make  a  common  front  and  send  a  memorandum  to  the 
CCR: they support the reduction of seniority for prosecutors’ (‘DNA și DIICOT fac front comun și 
procurori’) 
susțin 
trimit 
https://www.stiripesurse.ro/dna-si-diicot-fac-front-comun-si-trimit-un-memoriu-la-ccr-sustin-
reducerea-vechimii-pentru-procurori_1887124.html.  

un  memoriu 

reducerea 

vechimii 

pentru 

CCR: 

la 

Superior  Council  of  the  Magistracy,  Section  for  prosecutors,  Decision  No.  230  of  23  March  2021, 
http://old.csm1909.ro/csm/linkuri/20_05_2021__101956_ro.pdf. 

Superior Council of the Magistracy, Decision No. 148/2021, of 21 October 2021. 

Superior Council of the Magistracy (2022), Contribution from the Superior Council of the Magistracy 
for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. 

Transparency International (2022), Corruption Perceptions Index 2021. 

33 

 
Annex II: Country visit to Romania 

The Commission services held virtual meetings in April 2022 with: 

  Active Watch 
  Association of Romanian Judges 
  Association “Mișcarea pentru apărarea statutului procurorilor” 
  Bar Association 
  Center for independent journalism 
  Constitutional Court 
  Expertforum 
  Freedom House 
  Funky citizens 
  High Court of Cassation and Justice 
 
Initiative for Justice Association 
  Legal Commission of the Chamber of Deputies 
  Legislative Council 
  Media Association – Cluj 
  Ministry of Justice 
  Ministry of Culture 
  National Agency for the Management of Seized Assets  
  National Anti-corruption Directorate 
  National Anti-corruption Strategy 
  National Audiovisual Council 
  National Integrity Agency 
  National Integrity Council 
  National Union of the Romanian Judges 
  Ombudsperson 
  Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice 
  Radio Romania 
  Romanian Judges’ Forum 
  Romanian Television Society 
  Secretariat General of the Government 
  Superior Council for the Magistracy 

* The Commission also met the following organisations in a number of horizontal meetings:  

  Amnesty International  
  Article 19  
  Civil Liberties Union for Europe 
  Civil Society Europe  
  European Centre for Press and Media Freedom  
  European Civic Forum 
  European Federation of Journalists  
  European Partnership for Democracy 
  European Youth Forum 
  Free Press Unlimited 
  Human Rights Watch  
 

ILGA Europe 

34 

 
 
International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) 
International Press Institute 

 
 
  Open Society European Policy Institute ( OSEPI) 
  Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso Transeuropa  
  Philea 
  Reporters Without Borders 
  Transparency International Europe 

35